Pennsylvania Ponders Bold Democrat-Screwing Electoral Plan

[Eddie Teach]

Local vs. federal.  Just because New York City elected Rudy Giuliani doesn't mean that they suddenly became pro-life and wanted to abolish Social Security.

Yeah, but a lot of those guys should be more like Bloomburg and not be particularly enthused about giving more power to the more typical GOP types.

[DGuller]

Local vs. federal.  Just because New York City elected Rudy Giuliani doesn't mean that they suddenly became pro-life and wanted to abolish Social Security.

Yeah, but a lot of those guys should be more like Bloomburg and not be particularly enthused about giving more power to the more typical GOP types.

Just because Northeasterners are capable of electing Giuliani doesn't mean that they don't screw up and elect real nutcase Republicans once in a while, especially during a period of backlash.  It also doesn't take a big swing for a state like Pennsylvania, which is Alabama in the middle anyway.

[alfred russel]

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.

Does that really change the analysis? If Republicans got control of California and New York and awarded votes proportional to the popular vote, the effect would be that Democrats lose any close election. Assuming the dem. candidate wins 60-40, the electoral votes would go from being about 80-0 to 48-32--a change from an 80 vote edge to just 16.

[derspiess]

Yeah, but a lot of those guys should be more like Bloomburg and not be particularly enthused about giving more power to the more typical GOP types.

Nobody should be like Bloomberg.

[jimmy olsen]

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.

Does that really change the analysis? If Republicans got control of California and New York and awarded votes proportional to the popular vote, the effect would be that Democrats lose any close election. Assuming the dem. candidate wins 60-40, the electoral votes would go from being about 80-0 to 48-32--a change from an 80 vote edge to just 16.

Dems can do the same when they take Texas, Floria and Ohio.

[Valmy]

Dems can do the same when they take Texas

The day that happens will be the day the Democrats become more Republican than the Republicans.  That strikes me as unlikely since no matter how right wing the Texas Dems might be they have the burden of being associated with the national party.

[Razgovory]

Yeah, but a lot of those guys should be more like Bloomburg and not be particularly enthused about giving more power to the more typical GOP types.

Nobody should be like Bloomberg.

Yeah, competent and effective government officials does really undermine the anti-government position of the GOP.

[Eddie Teach]

Yeah, but a lot of those guys should be more like Bloomburg and not be particularly enthused about giving more power to the more typical GOP types.

Nobody should be like Bloomberg.

I meant should as in the sense that one would expect they would and not as a moral imperative.

[ulmont]

That would be better, but this way works. The Constitution gives state legislatures the ability to choose electors as they see fit. If they want to do it this way there's no stopping them.

There are probably limits.  If the state legislature voted that the Governor chose all the electors, or that the electors would always be the electors chosen by Party X, I suspect other constitutional provisions would come into play.

[dps]

That would be better, but this way works. The Constitution gives state legislatures the ability to choose electors as they see fit. If they want to do it this way there's no stopping them.

There are probably limits.  If the state legislature voted that the Governor chose all the electors, or that the electors would always be the electors chosen by Party X, I suspect other constitutional provisions would come into play.

Constitutionally, there aren't, except that federal officeholders can't be Electors.  From Article Two:  "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."

Now, in practice, if a state passed a law such as you suggest, the uproar would be so bad that the federal courts would likely find a pretext to declare the law unconstitutional, but there's really nothing there.

[ulmont]

Constitutionally, there aren't, except that federal officeholders can't be Electors.

If you assume that the remainder of the Constitution is irrelevant to the state action, sure.  I don't think you could realistically say that a state could mandate that all electors be white male property-holders over the age of 40, though...

[MadImmortalMan]

Rutherford B Hayes 2012

[dps]

Constitutionally, there aren't, except that federal officeholders can't be Electors.

If you assume that the remainder of the Constitution is irrelevant to the state action, sure.  I don't think you could realistically say that a state could mandate that all electors be white male property-holders over the age of 40, though...

No, then you'd probably run into a problem under the "equal protection of the laws" clause.  But it the state legislature simply directed the governor to appoint the electors, there's no provision of the Constitution that's clearly being violated.

[Admiral Yi]

Does that really change the analysis? If Republicans got control of California and New York and awarded votes proportional to the popular vote, the effect would be that Democrats lose any close election. Assuming the dem. candidate wins 60-40, the electoral votes would go from being about 80-0 to 48-32--a change from an 80 vote edge to just 16.

I suppose you're right Fredo.  If you posit a safe presidential state on the one hand and a stunning minority party victory in the state legislature on the other you'd have a hell of a damn mess. 

[Josquius]

Why doesn`t America have a proper, functional, politically neutral body for drawing up district lines?
Gerrymandering seems such a big part of things over there and it is so obviously　wrong.