Associated Press
Pennsylvania House Majority Leader Mike Turzai (R)
Republican Mike Turzai, Pennsylvania's House Majority Leader, made quite a name for himself over the summer when he boasted that the state's voter-ID law, ostensibly about the integrity of the electoral process, "is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania."
That plan didn't go well -- courts rejected the voter-suppression effort and President Obama won the Keystone State with relative ease. But Turzai isn't done rolling out election schemes (via my colleague Laura Conaway).
A Pennsylvania lawmaker is proposing making the state the only one to divide its electoral votes based on a presidential candidate's percentage of public support, a method that would have helped Republican Mitt Romney on Nov. 6.
Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi, a Republican from Chester, wants to replace the winner-take-all system, which gave President Barack Obama the state's 20 electoral votes, with one that divides them to reflect the proportion of votes cast for each candidate. His method would have awarded 12 votes to Obama and eight to Romney had it been in force this year.
It's understandable that Pennsylvania Republicans would consider efforts like these, and Pileggi's proposal reportedly has the support of Gov. Tom Corbett (R). The Democratic presidential candidate has won the state in six of the last six elections, and it's easier to "fix" the system then earn public support.
But as I wrote about a year ago, that doesn't make efforts like these any less ugly. As Ian Millhiser explained, "Pileggi's plan is nothing more than a proposal to steal electoral votes that are overwhelmingly likely to be awarded to the Democratic candidate under the current system and give them away to the Republican candidate."
Last year, this identical effort fizzled when congressional Republicans balked fearing the shift might endanger their seats. The fact that Pileggi is back at it, however, suggests the state GOP takes the plan seriously, and is well worth watching.
Leave a Comment:
Well, at least Mr. Young noticed a long time ago - Rust Never Sleeps! -Kevo
Ironically enough the Pileggi family money comes from funeral homes, a burgeoning business in the Republican constituency.
Pileggi was one of the first to "seemingly" separate himself from the Republican Party when he was running for office, by not indicating on placards, literature, etc. that he was a Republican.
Although I distrust the motive, isn't the new proposal quite like the effort in other states to essentially make the Electoral College moot by having it mirror the popular vote? Don't we progressives support that? Or are we fans of the Electoral College now that it appears Democrats have a structural advantage?
Good question, mob rule (like Prop 8, for example) is not always a sensible or just thing.
This isn't about the "Electoral College" this is about dividing the state's electoral votes because republicans aren't "winning" the state based on ideas or policy - there is a big difference behind the intent - voter disenfranchisement! And the fact is that what they're attempting to do might just come back round to bite them on the posterior!
The progressives banner does not only apply to the Democrats. Some Republicans still follow the La Follette school of conservatism. The Electoral College is designed to give those who reside in rural areas whom face completely different obstacles than urban dwellers a more equal voice on the national stage. I didn't agree with Bush getting the EC while losing the popular vote, but I understand it and accept it. As a progressive I think there are good reasons to keep and abandon the Electoral College.
I think that the motive is where we have to keep our attention. The Republicans have shown themselves as willing to do anything to win at any cost. If they can't win by playing by the rules, they want to change the rules.
The other states are generally passing laws that either say "once all the other states do the same thing" or, alternately, saying that "all our EV's go to the candidate who wins the popular vote once all the other states pass laws that do the same thing."
The National Popular Vote movement is a bit different in that it only goes into effect if there are enough States committed to it that they can decide the election. Until then, the current system of State-by-State representation is still in effect.
The Pennsylvania approach, on the other hand, depends on having red States be winner-take-all and blue states divided up. Net result: the electoral weight of blue States, relative to red States, gets cut almost in half.
Zora nailed it. Any pretense of "electoral college reform" is absurd. An enterprising journalist might ask Turzai why the state GOP is not joining the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact that DC Sessions is referring to.
The compact needs to be strengthened or the GOP will game it. The weakness is that GOP controlled states could suddenly withdraw from the compact in July before a Presidential election (the compact allows withdrawal at least 6 months prior to inauguration date). Consider the scenario- the Dem candidate has embarked on a national strategy, but the GOP has established a swing state strategy. Then GOP states that are members of the compact suddenly withdraw in July, and the GOP candidate is now poised with a devastating ground game in Ohio, Iowa, etc, while the Dem candidate must redeploy everything back to a swing state strategy, scrambling to buy local advertising and so on. The Dems would be chaos. As demonstrated by Romney's tardy establishment of his ground game, summer is way way too late.
For this reason, a 6 month exit window is far too short a time for exiting the compact. It must be two years to be fair.
They look like they're all going to the Republican funeral. This particular group of men in black, I believe are in disguise, they are fighting for the wrong side. Where's Beetlejuice?
Can't we just find someplace to send these people? Maybe someplace like the Australian outback, they are genuinely "Conservative" down there right? I'm sure they would be happier since they are obviously so disappointed and dissatisfied with the American Electoral system.
I do think it illustrates one of the big problems conservatives are having in their post election self evaluation. That their ideas and philosophy just aren't as popular as they want to believe. They just can't wrap their head around that and the only logical alternative for them is to change the rules. It's not that I am against election reform, I'm not, but this is just a Machiavellian attempt at rigging the system.
I don't think that they would fit in very well in Australia (and I would not want to be so mean to Australians). Really, they have a single-payer medical system!
Dragoon!!! What'd the Australians ever do to you?
Dragoon21b - If I'm not mistaken the national election put Romney at 47.3%. That's over 60 million people who agree with his ideas and philosophy. Just because all the news sources are outlining how the current Republican Party is on shaky ground doesn't mean they are out of the fight even without changing the rules. What Turzai is doing sounds more fair and progressive to him. The Electoral Votes will sync with the Popular Vote. Can't fault him for that. It's the underlying implications of making the Electoral College system moot that creates complications.
Don't underestimate the GOP. They are smart. They are still working out their growing pains of acquiring the Tea Party.
Just for sake of clarity I wasn't talking about the GOP broadly. I want a loyal thoughtful and considered opposition in American politics We need it. Desperately.
Rather the "People" I was referring to are the crazy, secessionist, "ACORN stole the election", nuts and the people who are more than willing to support them by tinkering with the machinery. These are people who are willing to do anything no matter how illegitimate to maintain a hold on power.
And as far as the Australians While they do have the one most conservative governments and cultures of western style Democracy I was thinking more about the Victoria desert and sending these people for a nice long walk in it, where they might do less damage to themselves and others. They seem to want to live in post apocalyptic "Mad Max" land let them.
The GOP didn't "acquire" the Tea Party, they created it. The "Tea Party is the GOP.
I guess having a Prime Minister who is a publicly-avowed atheist who lives with her hair dresser boyfriend in unwedded bliss probably is evidence of Australia having a "conservative government." What they have is a rule that voting is mandatory. Such a rule would go far to reforming America the way progressives would like to see.
We can send them to Transylvania along with Eddie Munster.
As a liberal living in South Carolina, I've supported the idea of making the electoral vote of a state match its popular vote percentages for as long as I can remember. However, unless all states agreed to this method simultaneously, it would inevitably be unfair to one side or the other.
This is the crux of the matter. It has to apply everywhere or no where.
Funny how it is a "scheme" when Republicans propose it and it is "progress" when Democrats propose it....unbelievable. You make me laugh
It's not the proposals that grant what it is called. But the intentions and motives behind it, the only reason this is being proposed, is to stop a Dem from getting all of the Electoral Votes. The reason it's being called a Scheme is because this idea is nowhere to be seen in any State. That gives all of it's ECV to a Presidential Candidate, if that said candidate is a Republican and that State is Red.
Personally I think every state should do this. Because it is fairer than the system we have now, and it's more representative of the people who vote. The essentially every state becomes a Swing State, and the entire election process becomes more engaging, because it isn't decided in 9-12 states total.
Ok how about we just do away with the electoral college and go with a direct vote? One person one vote. You are automatically registered to vote on your 18th birthday and elections and congresional districts are administered by non-partisan federal and state agencies managed by career professionals.
No more gerrymandering, no more voter suppression, no way to commit fraud (not that there has ever been much in the last 50 years)
How about that?
@Dragoon - Love it!
And all representative districts to be created by a computer program that doesn't take party affiliation into consideration!
Could you please PM me the contact information for your supplier?
"ugly" "steal" "scheme" "rig" all these negative buzz words......craziness for something that makes some common sense.....perhaps you are upset because YOU didn't come up with it!
Perhaps you believe that a bad ideal is a good ideal like most righties who have yet ever done more then destruction and whine. Really this belief of those on the right that everyone is just like them is laughable. Here is a clue, only a republican can come up with scams like this because no one else is as dishonest as republicans. When you chose republicans all you get are degrees of dishonesty, why because conservatives are corrupt to the bone.
pasco thinks everyone's jealous of Republicans.
Next he'll think everyone's jealous of vampires.
Same thing, I guess.
Yea, more plans from the Army of Institutional and Ideological Entropy (AIIE)!
Why after all these years does the electoral college need to be changed now? Because republicans could'nt win the election or buy it so they must find other ways to insure themselves a victory. They've redrawn lines in their states to allow them a greater chance of winning state and federal races and now they want to find ways, any ways to insure the presidential race is won by their party. Our voting rights are slowly being eroded by these smoke and mirror laws passed by republican led states, the same people that proclaim they are patriots who love and follow the constitution. They are nothing more than hypocrites and a plague on this country.
Just a matter of time before the yahoos in some of the states that went for Obama but have Republican legislatures gerrymandered into their seats like fence posts set in concrete start trying to pass laws saying "all our votes go to the Republican no matter who wins the popular vote in the state or the nation."
This is actually a good idea that should be applied more generally. It needs to be applied to the House as well, since despite being outvoted by several million total votes, the republicans still managed to get a majority because of the way votes were distributed.
Sauce for geese and ganders, doncha know?
Something as important as this should be a proposed amendment to the state constitution requiring the usual 60% to pass, rather than at the whim of self-elected partisans.
The electoral college was designed to give smaller states a voice, since they are the least populated. Trouble is the larger states still co.trol the elections because they carry the bulk of the electoral votes.
The popular vote is still probably not the way to go about this, in the long run.
Re-apportion the electoral votes so that a state like Montana gets 13 instead of 3, just watch the whole voting dynamic change.
Like Reagan's words of wisdom once spoken, "There you go again."
The national GOP leaders need step in and intervene for these yahoos. People like Turzai, Brewer, Pierce, Bentley, Arpio, and the whole Tea Party gang are what lost them the election. I predict that they will continue to ruin elections even for decent candidates such as Jeb Bush if they don't quit opening their traps, or trying to find ways to disenfranchise minority voters.
I'm sure, in fact certain, that there were/are good, well meaning people in the Tea Party. The truth, however, is that a good number of those following that movement had a racial bias. They simply could not stand having a black President. Furthermore, people like Donald Trump, The Killa from Wasilla Palin, and Rush Limbaugh, who are are looking to profit from the whole thing aren't making matters any better.
Stop ruining the party. The GOP is in danger of going the way of the Wig party if it doesn't stop to smell reality. For crying out loud, even Sean Hannidy understands as much!
Get your act together and start concentrating on doing things that will earn you votes. Things like working in the Senate and Congress for the good of the American people. You've fillibustered enough! Most of us know that you have fillibustered 350 plus times on anything that you thought would benefit the President. Stop and earn the salary that we pay you. Get to work!!
Expecting Confederates to act otherwise is disproven by the past 150 years of history.
The GOP isn't a political party. It's a crime family.
I like the idea of dividing the state's electoral votes by percentages. If all 50 states adopted this idea, our presidential campaigns would be focused on getting votes rather than a handful of states. The short term result is that Pennsylvania would instantly cease to be a battleground state and Pennsylvanians would get far less political ads. It's a win-win as far as I'm concerned.
I had always understood that the Electoral College system was created because our Founders did not want the common people voting for President at all. The common people voted for their congressmen, while the elite chose senators and the President. And in fact the US Constitution says nothing about popular votes or "winner take all." It simply says that states shall choose electors in any way that the state legislators may choose, and that those electors are the ones who vote for President.
I personally have long felt that a system of proportional voting per state would be more fair than the current "winner takes all" system. Certainly such a system, if implemented nationally, would get rid of the whole idea of "swing states."
On the other hand, the system Maine uses (in which electoral votes are assigned based on which candidate wins a given congressional district) would not work in larger states, in which the districts are (in a de facto sense) gerrymandered. The Tampa Bay area (where I live), for example, would metamorphose from a swing area to a solidly GOP area under such a system.
Pileggi is proposing that electoral votes be assigned based on the statewide popular vote. That may not be such a horrible idea.
I think it's a great idea - as a mechanism to get the Electoral College more in line with the popular vote. However, it needs to be implemented fairly: as a traditional Democratic state splits their votes, they should do it at the same time as a similar-sized Republican state splits theirs. Such as Texas.
Personally I am OK with the idea of the electoral vote of a state being split by popularity. But you are absolutely correct that this only works if all states participate. If just a handful of states participate- and they all happen to be Democratic leaning states- then you have a situation where the Republican states are able to maintain a solid Republican stance while the Democratic states that used to be solid become up for grabs. That's not exactly a fair system.
In my opinion this is why we need to nationalize our electoral system. This last election should have proven beyond a reasonable doubt why we desperately need continuity between the states when it comes to federal elections. Amend the constitution to eliminate state election laws as it pertains to districting and electoral votes and voter ID OR pass a federal law that puts a mandate on all states to meet one singular uniform code in exchange for federal funding as it pertains to those same areas (ID, electoral votes, and districts). In either case make the law specify either that we're doing away with the electoral college or that the electoral college must be split on the basis of the popular vote in each state for president. Bada bing bada boom.
Something tells me, however, that this Republican's plan is to split up all the blue states and keep the Republican states solid. Which would be about as fair as Democrats splitting up all the red states and keeping the Democratic states solid. Either way it's disproportionate representation.
CartoontheNews!, we don't need no stinkin' amendment! I quote:
US Constitution, Article 1, Section 4, para 1:
"The Time, Places, and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof, but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators."
The 17th Amendment removed that last clause, but the rest still stand. If my reading is correct however, there's nothing to prevent Congress from requiring all states to meet certain requirements regarding the number of voting precincts or voting machines. Or Congress could, under the power granted by this section of the Constitution, declare voting mandatory, make the day Federal elections are held a holiday (with pay!) or go to a nation-wide mail-in system.
Fat chance of any of that happening!
So basically, to get a Republican to back something that is actually a good idea (assuming red states follow suit, that is), all you have to do is wait until that idea benefits the Republican party itself.