Pennsylvania Ponders Bold Democrat-Screwing Electoral Plan

[jimmy olsen]

Wow, that's just shameless.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2011/09/13/pennsylvania_ponders_bold_democrat_screwing_electoral_plan.html

Pennsylvania Ponders Bold Democrat-Screwing Electoral Plan

By David Weigel

| Posted Tuesday, Sep. 13, 2011, at 4:06 PM EDT

Laura Olson reports on the happenings in Harrisburg, where Republicans now control all of the branches of government:

    Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi is trying to gather support to change the state's "winner-takes-all" approach for awarding electoral votes. Instead, he's suggesting that Pennsylvania dole them out based on which candidate wins each of the 18 congressional districts, with the final two going to the contender with the most votes statewide.

In other reports, Pileggi sounds awfully sanguine about the effect this would have on PA as a swing state. Why even bring that up? Pennsylvania is typically a closely-divided state, and while it's gone Democratic in every election since 1992, it's been heavily campaigned-in every year.

So, let's pretend this is a totally political neutral decision. If the next Republican candidate breaks the streak and wins the state, it would be horrible for him -- he'd shed electoral votes. But if the president wins, he's down at least nine, possibly ten electoral votes, because congressional districting is slanted towards the GOP.

Here's what I mean. In 2008, Barack Obama won the state by 10 points (overcoming a last-minute hoax scare wherein a Republican volunteer faked a mugging and claimed a black man carved a B on her face, for Barack). But the congressional map had been gerrymandered by Republicans in 2001, and John McCain ended up winning 10 of 19 congressional districts. If the Pileggi plan had been in place, Obama's rout would have given him a slim 11-10 electoral vote victory. If Republicans do a smarter gerrymander this time, they could craft an 11-7 map, or even a 12-6 map (they'll have 18 to work with, thanks to the Census taking one seat away). Let's say Obama carries Pennsylvania narrowly, but loses 11 congressional districts. In that scenario, the winner of the Pennsylvania popular vote takes nine EVs; the loser takes 11 EVs. How's that reform look to you?

[alfred russel]

This is why every state should be winner take all unless there is a collective move away from that system.

[Ideologue]

This is why every state should be winner take all unless there is a collective move away from that system.

Precisely.

[Admiral Yi]

This is why every state should be winner take all unless there is a collective move away from that system.

Aren't there a few states now that award electoral votes proportional to the popular vote in the state?  I don't see the problem with that.

Agree that using gerrymandered districts is very gamey.

[KRonn]

This is why every state should be winner take all unless there is a collective move away from that system.

Aren't there a few states now that award electoral votes proportional to the popular vote in the state?  I don't see the problem with that.

Agree that using gerrymandered districts is very gamey.

I like that electoral vote system better, seems more equitable. So that voters in a State who don't get the majority still have their votes count.

Massachusetts is gerrymandering now. Going to lose one or two districts, due to population loss. About ten years ago our House Speakers got convicted of some crimes over it, misdemeanors but lost his law license. Be interesting to see how it goes now; so brazenly political. Hehe..

[garbon]

(overcoming a last-minute hoax scare wherein a Republican volunteer faked a mugging and claimed a black man carved a B on her face, for Barack).

I don't remember the impact but was Barack really looking at failing in Penn because of that?

[Faeelin]

Aren't there a few states now that award electoral votes proportional to the popular vote in the state?  I don't see the problem with that.

Agree that using gerrymandered districts is very gamey.

Eh, that's great in theory, and I'd support it if every state did this, but all this is doing is destroy any belief in the notion of democracy. Pennsylvania's Republicans are worried the state will vote for Obama, so they're using control of the legislature to switch a system that's been in place for decades... actually, when did Pennsylvania not have this?

Let's suppose Obama loses again, thanks in part to this, despite getting 52% of the national vote. Why should anyone continue to have faith in American democracy after that?

[jimmy olsen]

It's not a democracy, it's a republic.

If you want more democracy, campaign for your state to join the National Popular Vote bandwagon.
It's up to 132 votes, 49% of the way there.

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

[Faeelin]

It's not a democracy, it's a republic.

I am shocked that you hate using words the way culture and the English language have evolved to use them, preferring to nitpick for unclear reasons while missing the point entirely.

[jimmy olsen]

It's not a democracy, it's a republic.

I am shocked that you hate using words the way culture and the English language have evolved to use them, preferring to nitpick for unclear reasons while missing the point entirely.

Look I acknowledge that the meaning of the word has changed, but facts are facts. The Founding Fathers weren't a fan and drew up the constitution to make the nation a Republic. That's how it works. I agree that the way the President is elected should change, and support NPV to that ends. Whining that the nation isn't a democracy doesn't change anything and just tells us something we already know.

[Zoupa]

It's not a democracy, it's a republic.

If you want more democracy, campaign for your state to join the National Popular Vote bandwagon.
It's up to 132 votes, 49% of the way there.

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

I always found retarded that you guys didn't already have that.

[Berkut]

It's not a democracy, it's a republic.

If you want more democracy, campaign for your state to join the National Popular Vote bandwagon.
It's up to 132 votes, 49% of the way there.

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

I always found retarded that you guys didn't already have that.

I was going to give you the entire song and dance about how the electoral system is important because it means that candidates cannot ignore smaller states in favor of just going where the population is at, but then I got thinking...so what?

These are national elections we are talking about, and the debate and campaign is national in scope. What difference does it make if Presidential candidates actually visit Wyoming or not? It's not like if they don't people in Wyoming won't know who is running, or what they stand for, right?

Hell, the entire travelling around and visiting places as part of the effort to garner votes is pretty silly anyway. Our entire process is strucutured around an eleectoral system that is not founded on anything that has current relevancy, really. Iowa is stupidly important, along with Massachusetts. Why? Because they have early primaries.

I think Zoupa is right. The electoral system is retarded in general.

[Queequeg]

Republicans are Asshats.  Berkut takes centrist position by blaming everything on system.  Film at 11.

[Berkut]

Yeah, me and Zoupa, two centrists at heart.

[Jacob]

It's not a democracy, it's a republic.

That's dumb, because the two are not mutually exclusive.

Yeah, I get it that Republican pundits like the sound of "Republic" better than "Democracy" but you're a republic because you don't have hereditary heads of state and you're a democracy because you elect your governments. The US is a democratic republic.

Now, we only need to find a way to add a "people's" in there....