Could Pennsylvania Republicans bypass the popular vote for president and pick the winner? (hint: yes)

mccall ^ | Sept 2020 | Angela Couloumbis and Cynthia Fernandez

[doug from upland]

HARRISBURG — Spotlight PA is an independent, nonpartisan newsroom powered by The Philadelphia Inquirer in partnership with PennLive/The Patriot-News, TribLIVE/Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, and WITF Public Media. Sign up for our free weekly newsletter.

It is the nightmare scenario Pennsylvania election officials have fretted over for months: a knock-down, drag-out fight over which presidential candidate will win the state and snag its coveted electoral votes. Advertisement 01:10 05:37

Now, the head of the Republican Party of Pennsylvania has fueled fears of chaos after Election Day, raising the specter that his party could break with tradition and allow the GOP-controlled Legislature to choose a slate of presidential electors to cast the state’s votes for Donald Trump — even if the president doesn’t win the popular vote.

In comments to The Atlantic made public this week, state Republican Chairman Lawrence Tabas suggested that he had spoken with Trump campaign officials about the possibility of bypassing the results of the popular vote, should there be uncertainty or disputes over the validity of ballots cast. The U.S. Constitution, Tabas said, allows state legislatures to choose presidential electors.

[doug from upland]

During Bush v Gore, I contacted the office of the Speaker of the House in Florida. Republicans controlled both houses and, if the dispute was not settled favorably by SCOTUS, he was prepared to call a special joint session and vote to give Bush the electors. Tucker has shown us what the Dems are doing in Pennsylvania by poll workers refusing to check dubious signatures. If the suspected fraud is widespread, let's see if the legislature pulls the trigger to award the electors to our President.

[olezip]

Pennsylvania has a population itself greater than the population of the entire country when the Electoral College was created. Pennsylvania suffers from the same unfair malady that the Electoral College corrected for all of the States.

Perhaps Pennsylvania should adopt a County level version of the Electoral College so the counties with the largest populations do not dominate Federal elections.

As it is the Pittsburg, Philadelphia, and Harrisburg areas with large populations bully the other counties. Large, densely populated areas are characterized by high crime rates, drug use, and populations dependent upon leftist Democrats who keep the freebies coming. The rest of the State is forced to pay for the freebies.

[j.havenfarm]

It’s a downplayed part of the Bush v Gore story. It was about Roughly 7 pm, PST. The FL legislators were at capitol, ready to go into session and appoint the Bush electors, when Bush v Gore came down. While FLSC was outrageous in their attempts to deliver FL to Gore, issuance of the Bush v Gore decision was not necessary to achieve the proper result and, IMO, should not have been done

[PerConPat]

Could be very interesting...

Here is the current makeup of the state [PA] House and Senate heading into the November election:

Senate: 28 Republicans, 21 Democrats and 1 Independent*

*The Independent caucuses with Republicans.

House: 109 Republicans, 93 Democrats and 1 vacancy

[JPJones]

This is good news!

If the dems whine, tell them state elections have consequences.

[gbscott]

“It’s a downplayed part of the Bush v Gore story. It was about Roughly 7 pm, PST. The FL legislators were at capitol, ready to go into session and appoint the Bush electors, when Bush v Gore came down.”

Thanks so much for posting this and reminding me of that little bit of history. I remember now that they were ready to act.

I am curious about the Penn legislature. Would it be subject to a veto by the Gov, or would he have a say? Isn’t it remarkable how the founding fathers set up government that seems to anticipate all the problems we have had!

[j.havenfarm]

Welcome.
Nope. The Consitution says that the legislature decides. It says nothing about passing a law, ie, obtaining the consent of the governor

[libertylover]

*The Independent caucuses with Republicans.

First case I've ever heard of that.

[USS Alaska]

It could happen, legally, but I've been involved in Pa politics for a long time and I don't believe that the PA congresscritters have the balls to do it.

12 years ago, pubbies controlled the House, the Senate and the gubbernor and they promised to change the way we allocate our electoral college votes so that the winner of the popular vote gets 2 {the senators vote} and the winner of house races determine the remaining votes so that philly and pburgh wouldn't control all of the electoral college votes.

Had they done that, the pubbies would always get at least 50-80% of the votes. We would NEVER get shut out.

They didn't even have the guts to pass that because of the influence of big money.

We had our chance, but the cowards let us down.

[doug from upland]

Here is another really funny anecdote about the day SCOTUS decided and Gore conceded. I was driving in my car in Orange County and the news came on the radio. They had a comment from Gore that there was a gathering at the VP house that night and if his friends forgot how to get there, they should go to where people are chanting GET OUT OF CHENEY’S HOUSE! Epic job by the FReepers.

[MayflowerMadam]

I recall when the FReepers did that. So funny.

[Jacquerie]

Maybe you did, but from FL law the electors were going to GWB no matter the ruling from scotus.

[Alberta's Child]

Believe it or not, there's actually a good reason NOT to allocate electoral votes by Congressional district in a state like PA.

There are 18 House districts in the state, and it's now split 9-9 between the two parties in the current House delegation. For the sake of this discussion let's assume that the realistic range of extreme D-R splits would be 12-6 either way. That means a Presidential candidate who wins Pennsylvania by the widest practical margin would get 14 electoral votes (12 House districts plus the two "at-large" EVs for the Senate seats), while the loser would still get 6 electoral votes.

In this type of scenario Pennsylvania would effectively lose a lot of its influence in presidential elections because AT BEST it is basically the same as a state with 8 electoral votes. And you may even end up with scenarios where a candidate wins the state and gets the two "at-large" EVs even while losing a majority of the 18 House districts.

A state like this is very likely to be ignored by presidential candidates.

I like the idea of apportioning electoral votes on the basis of House districts, but only if the nation does it across the board rather than on a state-by-state basis.

[Lazamataz]

THIS IS BRILLIANCE

Politically it would be a nightmare, and the riots would be even greater than are now planned.

BUT IT IS STILL BRILLIANT

[j.havenfarm]

I remember!
I had my SoreLoserman sticker, too!

[Lazamataz]

It’s a downplayed part of the Bush v Gore story. It was about Roughly 7 pm, PST. The FL legislators were at capitol, ready to go into session and appoint the Bush electors, when Bush v Gore came down. While FLSC was outrageous in their attempts to deliver FL to Gore, issuance of the Bush v Gore decision was not necessary to achieve the proper result and, IMO, should not have been done

That is some fascinating history I did not know.

[jz638]

Even in the extraordinarily unusual scenario where this could happen under relatively legitimate circumstances, the PA supreme court would overrule it.

“That’s not constitutional! They’ll be legislating from the bench!”. Funny enough, that is the current PA supreme court motto.

[Yulee]

Perhaps Pennsylvania should adopt a County level version of the Electoral College
**************
Electoral votes should be allotted per the outcome of each Congressional District. So if a large urban area got out 110% of their possible vote, they would still be allotted one electoral vote, rather than in the current situation where their total vote count is added to the state count, resulting in a winner take all, statewide winner.

Each electoral vote would represent the wishes of the members of each Congressional District (winner of the vote in the Congressional district), rather than being awarded to the winner of the total statewide vote, where large urban areas can "get out the vote, by hook, crook, or other nefarious means.

Example: Miami/Dade could only generate the number of electoral votes from their district, not pick up those belonging to the large red areas of the state, by swamping the statewide count with illegal votes (see previous irregularities).

[bankwalker]

I just found my still brand new sore loserman t-shirt.

I also found a Gore 2000 nasdaq 2000 sign.

[semimojo]

The Consitution says that the legislature decides. It says nothing about passing a law, ie, obtaining the consent of the governor

I've heard this argument but I presume the PA legislature has already decided how the state picks its electors and written it into law.

The PA constitution also probably dictates how that law can be amended/changed.

It seems to me that a unilateral move by the legislature to change existing law would run afoul of the state constitution, and I imagine the USSC would uphold that aspect of it.

Now if the legislature had never written any laws about choosing electors they may very well have the right under the US Constitution to act unilaterally.