« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Pennsylvania considering Electoral College split

By: Neil Stevens (Diary)  |  September 13th, 2011 at 04:30 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Governor Tom Corbett and Pennsylvania Republicans are considering legislation to change the allocation of Pennsylvania’s Presidential electors. Instead of awarding all 20 on a winner take all basis, the plan by Senate leader Dominic Pileggi would switch to the Congressional district model currently in use by Nebraska and Maine.

In Nebraska and Maine, the statewide popular vote for President only determines two Presidential electors, the two representing the states’ Senators. The remaining votes are allocated according to the popular vote in each House district. Nebraska’s second district breaking for Obama in 2008 did not shape the election, but if Pennsylvania follows this model, then the 2012 Electoral College scenarios change significantly. Here’s how.

According to my own 2012 Create your own Electoral College tool, the base 2008 map with the 2012 apportionment starts the President with a 359-179 Electoral College lead. However if we swing five states (Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Indiana, and Ohio) and one district (Nebraska 2) that George W. Bush won twice, Barack Obama’s lead is reduced to 272-266.

Enter Pennsylvania. In 2008, Obama won 9 of 19 House districts, plus the statewide vote. If he were to win 9 of Pennsylvania’s 18 districts in 2012 plus the statewide vote, he would earn 11 of the state’s 20 votes, with the remaining 9 going to the Republican.

Subtracting 9 from Obama in the above scenario, and adding 9 to the Republican, changes the result. The Republican now wins 275-263. Republicans would have much less need to hope for a turnaround in states like Nevada or Colorado, or to win a coin flip in swing states like New Mexico, New Hampshire, or Iowa. Five states that went for Bush twice would win the election.

It’s obvious why Pennsylvania Republicans are considering this. It changes the tactical situation of the race, with an 18 point swing toward the Republicans. The Pennsylvania plan is as meaningful as winning Colorado’s 9 electoral votes, and that’s without even changing the mood of the electorate.

Tags: , , , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Change Jar Conservative

    I see it’s advantage for Republicans, but is this what we want?

    I guess it helps us in blue-ish states as long as it doesn’t become a change in the red states.

  • LiveStronger

    Obama should start packing his bags. Especially if Pennsylvania makes this change.

  • Coop

    Tactically, this may help Republicans in PA. However, it could hurt them somewhere else. But strategically this will only provide ammunition to those wanting to do away with the electoral college (in favor of a straight national vote total) completely. Then NY, CA and Washington D.C. will have even more influence over the U.S.A. power structure than they already do. No thanks.

  • swami7774

    Whatever EVs we’d gain in Pennsylvania would be lost in Texas, in those districts along the Mexican border.

  • maddog

    An interesting idea but could have a bunch of bad side effects:

    1) Just as we could claim some electoral votes (ev) in PA, so, too could the Dems in urban areas of our states such as GA, TX, FL, etc. This could be an indirect way of having a popular vote rule that some on the left are pushing.
    2) Redistricting. You think the process is politicized now, wait until EVs for a Presidential election are added to the prize. Suddenly, how arbitrary lines are drawn will have a lot more significance, then just on one or two obscure Congress critters.
    3) The majority minority districts. We forfeit those automatically. The other side gets a head start before the election even begins.
    4) Voting Rights Act. There are many districts today that still have to comply with Voting Rights Act requirements 40 years later. Some districts cannot even move a polling place across the street without going through bureaucratic hurdles at the Department of Justice. Is this backdoor invite for the Feds to insert themselves where they don’t belong?

    Fellow conservatives, the initial appeal is there, (pull evs for Obama from PA and condemn him to one term status) but it is fraught with peril in ways not yet considered or known. What we have now has worked for couple centuries. Let’s keep it that way.

  • http://www.mullinslawoffices.com/ Jim Mullins

    This plan will break the back of the corrupt Philly Dem machine and quarantine their fraud to the city’s 3 congressional districts (and possible 2 at-large electoral votes if they want to go for tipping the outcome of the statewide vote) instead of all 20 of the state’s electoral votes. Furthermore, the Republicans who now run Michigan also need to split their state’s electoral votes accordingly.

    As for those who fear the domino effect, are there any big states whose electoral votes we normally rely upon (e.g., Texas, Florida, Ohio) that have Democrat legislatures? No. We have the power to block splitting the electoral votes in states where we benefit from the winner-take-all system. Will this reagitate supporters of abolishing the Electoral College? Maybe, but the odds of passing a constitutional amendment in Congress are slim and the odds of getting 38 states legislatures to ratify it are none.

    Since they apparently can’t expel Philly from the state, splitting the electoral votes by congressional district is the next best thing and should be done without further delay.

  • throwback59

    If we lose the winner take all format what is the point of the College in the first place?

  • freemanja1991

    we might out right win PA in 12, who knows,

  • acat

    over to the Congress. Seriously, that’s what the founders expected to happen because at the time, there were no parties, and electors were simply there to hear the speeches of the candidates and decide for those who elected them.

    I forget which founder it was who, when he found himself on the outside looking in, devised the first political party to lock in electoral votes as a way to decide the election without throwing it to Congress.

    History is fascinating sometimes.

    Mew

  • drfredc

    Hmmm… I guess this is a way to may cut down on visits and TV ads in PA by the Presidential candidates since there’s probably only a couple electoral votes in play. It would also focus $$$$ for both parties on local races.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    - Gives additional power to small states
    - Spreads out the vote in a federal way, rather than having one national election
    - Lets states choose how to select electors

    You know that, for example, South Carolina didn’t vote at all for a long time, right? As late as 1864 they were having the legislature choose electors.

  • Whacker77

    We shouldn’t be tinkering the electoral college. The system we’ve worked under has worked pretty darn well. It may favor Republicans, but I don’t like the piece meal approach.

    If the entire country decided to swith CD voting with the senator votes going to the winner, I would be fine. I don’t like a fragmented approach.

  • keysconservative

    Each state has the right to allocate it’s electoral votes as it sees fit. I have no problem with it.

  • jaykitsap

    This is far better than the Popular Vote cr*p which torpedoes the EC. It is each states right to determine a fair way of handling their EC votes. The two senate seats give the little state some advantage to offset their size which is retained. But the winner take all has put CA and NY basically out of presidential campaigning. This brings back a distribution closer the popular vote.

    One huge feature is most recounts will be in one district or count for 2 EC votes, no Florida 2000 again.

    Big states would do better being divided, little states (6 EC or less) probably better being winner take all from a standpoint of making a difference in the campaign and election.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    This preserves the Electoral college’s strengths.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    The Electoral College leaves this to the states.

  • unclefred

    It is not possible to imagine that the founders did not discuss the notion of allocating electoral votes based on house districts instead of the current system. If you think that it is important to protect the small state large state protections, this is a very bad idea.

    Personally I would work for a constitutional amendment to require that states allocate their electoral votes on a winner take all basis.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    In fact there was great diversity in the early elections.

    That you’re arguing for conformity now actually runs counter to what the actual founders *did*.

  • pantera

    Now if Ca,NY follows suit that would be great.

  • acat

    (cheshire frown)

  • youngsterz

    Imagine if you combined the electoral college votes for a handful of smaller Western/Upper Mid-Western states, say Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, and the Dakotas. They total 16 votes, which is the same as Michigan or Georgia.

    If you were to tell those 5 states that they had to combine their electoral votes and winner-take-all based on the general election totals of all five states, people would freak out and be up in arms about how “unfair” it all is. What’s more fair or unfair about that versus Michigan or Georgia being all or nothing for their 16 votes?

    Well then what is the difference between that versus a state like Pennsylvania, who has dramatic regional differences in cultural and voting patterns, dividing up their electoral college votes based on congressional districts? Congressional districts are population based, just like the electoral college votes of individual states.

    I would want to put a little more thought into it and research the pros and cons, and understand better why the system is the way it is, but ultimately, if we are going to be a representative form of government, then why would anyone have a problem with local voters being represented as a result of their local vote instead of being overruled by their more populous neighbors on the other side of the state?

    Hmmm. Just something to consider. If the people of Pennsylvania want to represent themselves that way, it’s really not any of my business.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    If we had done this on the national level in 2008 the final electoral vote would have been 301 EVs for Obama, 237 McCain. Assuming I did the numbers right, a 2.5% shift across the board our way would have given us the election, 272/266.

    Not that we can expect any kind of uniform across-the-board shift, and the new districts are going to make calculations too complicated for my blood anyway.

  • rubb

    I wish everybody would quit tinkering. The system we have has worked pretty well for the last two centuries. If states keep playing games they are going to find they lose all influence in presidential elections. If a state starts allocating their votes, they may find a candidate decides not to expend resources chasing one or two votes at a time, when it’s much easier to go a couple states over and win a batch of ten or so in one shot. There is also a great danger in trying to follow a popular vote model with your states electors. if you do that , and you are not one of the more populous states, you guarantee you will never see another presidential candidate in your state again They won’t need to if you decide you’re just going to follow CA, NY FL, and TX.

  • nvrepub

    If it makes the difference between Obama winning or losing, would THAT be worth it??

  • acat

    Or, if you prefer, opposing change that is merely for the sake of change.

    The ramifications of this change are far-reaching, and need to be understood before I’ll support it. Pennsylvania is one of the larger States to look at this .. and it’s worth looking at the map – as Neil and Moe did – and seeing what would happen if other States adopt it.

    Mew

  • qsclues

    Frankly, I agree with this plan, and would be fine with it if this was the case everywhere. Not because it helps the Republicans (though it does), but because very few states are purely red or blue, and I think the EV count from each state should reflect that.

    What I think is the bigger problem is the states that are moving toward giving their electoral votes to the winner of the overall popular vote. I believe that is unconstitutional…my vote in Minnesota would count in their state, but their vote wouldn’t count in mine. Sounds bad to me, even if it does help us.

  • nvrepub

    nt

  • Raven

    It would break the backs of the Philly/Pittsburgh machines and their union cohorts and make he rest of the state more important for Everything.
    Finally, how Blair county, or Huntingdon County or Erie votes will matter.

  • buddha1556

    Gerrymandering will be used to manipulate this system to the maximum.. In the winner take all method that most states use, population growth/decline is the only logical threat to the process.

    If states adopt the proposed PA model, the congressional districts can be manipulated to affect the assignment of electoral votes. State legislatures don’t have the power to redraw state lines, but they can certainly redraw the lines of congressional districts to achieve desired outcomes.

    I will concede that I may not grasp this completely, but my initial reaction is that the cons far outweigh the pros.

  • lgbpop

    The Electoral College was devised to act as a stabilizing force against public whim and opinion. Electing respected members of the community to cast a thoughtful vote was expected to lessen the impact of a demagogue taking advantage of a brief period of mass hysteria or adulation by the common man. It also was a compromise designed to lessen the marginalizing of the vote of the smaller states. By and large, the system has worked exactly as intended. I have noticed that in every election where the second-place popular vote winner has been elected President – or those few cases where the House decided the election – the eventual winner was a man of good character and intent. That’s not saying the public actually liked the decision sometimes, but we have been well-served. It had nothing to do with, nor had it been adversely affected by the rise of political parties in the 1790s. It works with or without parties, and if it was designed as Mew claimed the election of 1820 would never have resulted in a near-unanimous decision; nor would those of 1904, 1920, 1932, 1964, 1972, 1980 or 1984. Indeed, the House elections are notable by their rarity not their frequency.

  • acat

    The Chicago/Gary media market is expensive, but covers almost all of the blue districts in both States. Throw in the St. Louis MO district, and it’s pretty much a lock.

    To do buys to reach Red districts, ya gotta buy in Chicago/Gary, Springfield, IL, Decatur, IL, Peoria, IL, Indianapolis, Terre Haute, and the Louisville KY markets as well.

    That sure looks like it makes things easier and cheaper for the Dems.

    Mew

  • lgbpop

    People really need to remember that the presidential elections are not a vote by one country, but the total of the majority votes of the fifty states. That expression about dying by the same sword one lives by will comes back to bite those who think balkanizing the Pennsylvania electoral vote is a good idea.

    Really, a good candidate will be elected over a bad one most times. Governor Reagan carried Pennsylvania decisively twice. How would either party feel when the day inevitably comes when they lose by six electoral votes and the loser could have had all of Pennsylvania’s 20 votes instead of, say, just 12 out of 20?

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Fine, let’s go back to how they did it in 1788.

    Oops. Two states did it the NE/ME way: VA and DE. MA did it a hybrid: the two statewide were chosen by the legislature, and the rest were done by CD popular vote.

  • sergios

    This has not been the system for 200 years. It has varied. Some legislatures used to select Elecors. Some states carved out electoral districts in addition to congressional districts with redistricting. The current system of winner take all in most states has been in place primarily fror about a century.

    This is good news. It cuts down the impact of fraud in the Dem strongholds from stealing all the states EV. This year the parties can make these chages to hurt each other in 5 states. Republican advantage: PA, WI, MI, Democrat advantage: AR, WV. The net republican gain would be about 20 EV almost putting 2012 out of reach for Obama.

  • sergios

    If the Republican candidate wins PA it will be a landslide and losing 8-9 EV’s won’t make a difference.

  • sergios

    Some states used to created electoral districts in addition to congressional districts after redistricting.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    .

  • acat

    Let’s keep it in Pennsylvania, then.

    What percentage of the States’ voters live outside Pittsburg and Philadelphia media markets?

    Will the Dems buy ad time on stations in Altoona and Scranton and Allentown?

    Will the GOP have to buy ad time in Altoona, Scranton, and Allentown – in addition to buys in Pittsburg and Philly to reach their GOP-centric collar counties?

    I’m not arguing the legality of Pennsylvania doing this. I’m arguing that there is a dollar cost associated.

    Please show me where I’m in error.

    Mew

  • easyb

    we could pull this off in California. The last time a republican won my state was Reagan, and I was too young to vote then. Every 4 years, its infuriating to know all the electors are going to the Dem. Look at the popular vote maps by red/blue from ’08 and ’04, and you’ll know that this strategy would put a lot of electors back into the game.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …because of two considerations, operational and philosophical.

    First, it forces the candidates to campaign nationally, rather than merely in the battleground states.

    Second, it meshes the two components of a bicameral legislative process.

  • rmiddle

    No one in there right mind would be manipulating this to get a better result in the EC results if it hurt there congressmen. Lets face it there is already a lot of tweaking of the system to create safe Congressional seats. This wouldn’t change that much.

    Thanks
    Robert

  • ihateliberals

    i support this entirely. The reason is that every district in PA went RED in the 2008 vote except right around Philly and Pittsburgh. But because ot the rules and the population of these two areas all of the electoral votes went Blue. Its not fair to those counties and Districts that were all Red. I believe all states votes should be broken down by district. That is the only way that it is fair.

  • travis690

    That would only be true IF Texas were to do the same thing.

    This plan is being discussed in Pennsylvania, to apply only in Pennsylvania. Remember that the rules of the Electoral College are set by each state, for only their own Electors. What one state does is not in any way binding on what any other state does; therefore, this would not affect Texas at all.

  • rmiddle

    1) Is this good for PA?
    Good question. I think overall it will be. Some area’s will get more ad’s since they are marginal area’s other will get less since they will be largely one party or the other.

    2) Is this good for Republican?
    Yes. PA thanks to Philly has been getting more and more blue over the years and that trend means that less and less money is getting poured into the state making it more and more blue. It is a bad cycle to be in. This means Republican can get some of the Votes without it being a win or loss instead it might mean they can get a few more or less EC votes.

    3) Is this good for the Nation?

    Not sure. Piece mail like this could be a little bit Dangerous to the system. For instance if FL, OH, and TX were to convert but CA, and NY weren’t then I can’t see a way Republican could win outside a huge landslide in the popular vote. On the other Hand. If CA, PA, MI, and NY were to convert then it would be almost impossible for the Dem’s to win.

    With this all being said it is up to the states to decide how they want to handle there EC selection. But I can’t see many states moving to a system like this because the party in power at the local level generally has the most to lose converting to this system. It is only the purple states that are likely to look at something like this since the party in power swap’s back and forth and the one wining the entire state doesn’t always match the legislature.

    Thanks
    Robert

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    We already have to buy in the great middle order to compete in PA.

    The only difference is we can just give up the big city districts for dead, while still contesting a number of electoral votes.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Why would we expect all our states to do it? The first state doing this is a state Democrats won in Presidential elections in 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2008. The last time we won it was in 1988, a year when we had a 300-some EC advantage and didn’t need PA to be winner-take-all anyway.

    Also, by your standard, Florida *should* do it. It’s not “ours” anyway. It went Dem in 92, 96, and 08, while it went GOP in 88, 00, and 04.

  • JSobieski

    don’t have the large Blue urban centers. Even if Indiana did it, we could still win all of the electoral votes. Texas on the other hand would obviously hurt us.

    It would help us in Michigan for same reason why it would hurt us in Ohio.

    If this PA thing catches on, it is going to lead to some interesting tinkering.

  • rmiddle

    I said those are the more likely states to look at this. I could see Dem’s want to do this in VA for instance is they every get both the governor and legislature back since 2008 is more of a fluke for them then the norm.

    I can’t see for instance NY considering this since the Dem who run the state house wont want to lose votes. I also can’t see Texas taking it up for the same reason.

    Thanks
    Robert

  • YnotNOW

    Founders were concerned that someone “very” popular in just a few states (i,e, the South) would outweigh support that had a broader geographic appeal but had a lesser % of the vote in those states (and therefore could lose a popular election total of votes).

  • YnotNOW

    this is of the same thought-line as the “national popular vote” movement. Regardless of who it helps in the near-term election, it subverts Federalism and needs to be squashed.

  • YnotNOW

    in that it is similar in thought to the “national popular vote” movement. If people can be persuaded that one is good, they may be sympathetic to go “all the way” and support the other as well. Not necesarily, but they might. Which would be a really bad idea.

  • Mayhem

    Assume this was tried in every state of the Union. Wouldn’t candidates just campaign in large urban centers where most of the congressional districts are located? They’d just stay in big media markets and push big turnout in high density population ares.

    It’s like Romneycare. Yes, it was legal under federalism, but it is bad precedent and bad policy on the merits.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Three states did it this way to elect George Washington.

  • JSobieski

    Further compartmentalizing potential fraud. Dead voters in Chicago wouldn’t be able to deliver ilinois for example

  • ajshea

    This idea in Pennsylvania is sheer madness. You need to ask yourself, why does George Soros fund the National Popular Vote movement?

    For one, it makes it easier to commit voter fraud. The dead vote in Chicago is a lot more useful when it contributes to the overall national vote.

    Secondly, it would eliminate the attention candidates pay to “flyover country”, like Iowa, New Hampshire, etc. If all you have to do to win the election is win 50% +1 vote, then you will spend all your time in the big cities and populous states, and the rural areas — who needs em?

    This was the unintended genius of the founders. I didn’t realize this until the 2000 election, when I listened to Radio France International gushing (yes!) about the genius of a system that ensured that politicians couldn’t afford to focus solely on big cities. (I lived in West Africa at the time, and RFI and BBC were the primary sources of news available.)

    In fact, the result of the Electoral College is that presidential candidates end up spending more time in rural areas than they do in cities. It also helps preserve the pre-eminence of the states and prevent them from being suborned to an insatiable nationalist government.

    The Electoral College vote is the reason that New Hampshire is an important state in the presidential candidate race. Without the EC NH will be unimportant. In effect, the EC helps equalize the influence of the large population centers, which tend to be more liberal/progressive (Chicago, New York, Los Angeles) with the more conservative rural population (New Hampshire, Iowa, South Carolina).

    Read up on the nefarious forces behind the National Popular Vote at http://www.saveourstates.com/about/

    This might benefit the anti-Obama vote this cycle, but it will ensure there will be more Obama-like candidates in the future. National Popular Vote will destroy the federalist concept of the United and States.

  • acat

    with the government they’ve left us.

    Pennsylvania can select their electors as they like, of course, and this change does not implement direct popular vote.. but it does look like another step in that direction… at least from a certain point of view.

    Awaiting Neil’s reply.

    Mew

  • Aaron Gardner

    ..

  • steve010

    it’s bloody and showing bones.

    the GOP can win this election without gambling on winner take all. six states republican’s control leg and gov, OH, PA, WI, VA, FL, MI.

    This is a perfect storm. Up until the election in 2012 the legislatures of these states can hold back and decide to go winner take all or apportion by congressional district.

    GOP candidate can win going away. BHO cannot do anything about it.

  • steve010

    change it back. Even retail stores let you return items.

  • steve010

    you’re leading 4-2 or 5-2 going into the 7th inning. Put the pressure on and score 3 or 4 more runs. It’s called going for the jugular. If we already know that we have enough EV to win the election weeks before the election, the other side’s jugular has been severed. They bleed out, we win. Winning by default is great.

  • steve010

    Game Host: Ok contestants, this is how the game works!! You can either choose to Play it Safe or you can go for the gusto and choose Winner Take All.

    Ok, Mr. Florida, if you choose to roll the dice, flip the coin, or go for it all, you get 29 electoral votes. But if you decide to Play it Safe, you get 22 guaranteed electoral votes without gambling. Yes, there?s a question from the contestant:

    Mr. Florida: ?What do I get if I go for the Winner Take All and I don?t win?

    Game Host: Well, audience, you can answer that question, What is it? A BIG FAT ZERO. Right, you get nothing.

    Mr. Florida: So, if I play it safe, I get a for sure 22, and if I gamble it and risk it all I only get another 7 for my trouble, but I could end up with zero?

    Game Host: That?s right Mr. Florida.

    Mr. Florida: I?ll take the 22. Only a moron would choose the Winner Take All.

    Game Host: And there you have it audience another successful round of Winner Take All, where if you Play it Safe, everyone wins.

    If Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin and Florida (all controlled by (R) legislatures and Governor) vote to Play it Safe and apportion their electoral votes by congressional district, Game Over, Republican walks into the WH in January 2013.
    I don?t want to hear any excuses if we have to suffer through another 4 years of the current schlemiel.

  • snowshooze

    But this EC stuff I have to look at.
    If the EC loses power, itty bitty States like mine lose all power in the election… we are less than a Million in Alaska I think. but if EC is maintained by district…what is the overall effect?
    Cut it this way, or that.. is not the whole, a sum of it’s products?

  • snowshooze

    But, on the flip… we might get something out of States such as California where the Rural people are swept into the trash with the rest.

  • snowshooze

    Appears to be your point.

  • steve010

    Do we understand what this means? In the six most important battleground states. PA, OH, FL, MI, WI and VA. The legislature and the governor are all supposedly on the same team. They are all on our team, right?

    This means that they can observe and pontificate and suppose up to days before the national election, call a special assembly, call for apportionment of the EV to congressional district and our guy wins automatically.

    Sorry, but I have to go change my underpants.

  • steve010

    anyway you want to but it still adds up to 3. Folks this is simple Math. The winner of the Presidential election needs 270 EV. Forget about your state. I live in FL. We have 29 EV, so what? It isn’t 270.

    If States apportion EV instead of Winner take all:

    PA the GOP gets 13
    OH 13
    FL

  • steve010

    sorry:

    FL 22
    VA 10
    MI 9
    WI 6

    How many of these electoral votes did we get last time? Answer NONE>

  • acat

    This doesn’t make things cheaper for the GOP, but it does give better ROI…

    Mew

  • acat

    this is seen by some as a move in the direction of National Popular Vote.

    The logic is something like “Once enough big States allocate by percentage, it will be easier to justify junking the EC as a streamlining measure”.

    Mew

  • steve010

    ?This is a desecration of 224 years of history,? said Pennsylvania Democratic state Sen. Daylin Leach. ?This is all geared towards making sure a Democrat can never win another presidential election.?

    That would be a shame.

  • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

    In the Compact, the awarding of electors is based on the national vote outcome (huge problems there, but that’s a whole post in itself). So in actuality, you are having the legislatures of a few specific states are setting the rules for the nation, evading public discussion on a national level and de facto amending the constitution by irregular means.

    That is, a few states are imposing their system of electoral votes allocation on the other states.

    Here you are having the legislature of a state changing the awarding to votes in their individual state to mirror more closely the congressional (House+Senate) make-up of the state. We can dispute the merits of this system (I have mixed feelings, but it is a reasonable approach), but that’s the whole point, each state is its own laboratory, no state is telling any other state what to do.

    In the longer run, if all states went this way, it would mean that the presidential vote would correlate quite closely with the results for the House elections, with the “at large” vote a wild card factor in a close House election season.

    The danger is that this method unwittingly could undermine the autonomy of the states by opening the way for the Federal Courts (and the DOJ and Congress) to inject itself into this electoral college procedure by their intervening in the determination of Congressional districts – and also create a total circus if the allocation of federal Congressional districts gets cast into the state courts or a popular initiative in states that allow that). Especially if the new apportionment is tied up in court by the time of the next election – which will be a strategy that will surely be employed by both parties.

    Definitely some unintended consequences could be let loose. But as far as this being a gateway to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact – only in that once you start changing the electoral college allocation in a number of states, such success opens opens up the “game” to other players as well.

  • steve010

    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.

    This is what the Constitution says about the Electors. It doesn’t say WHEN. It just says that the State leg must appoint in such a manner:

    How about the legislature meeting a couple of days after the election, vote to distribute by CD,if you lose the winner take all because the Electoral College doesn’t meet until December?

  • steve010

    in FL, Section 103.11 explains the apportioning of Electoral Votes for President. The Electors are chosen on the day of the Presidential Election. So, it could be a two step process. Change the law to read that the Electors will be chosen in 30 days after the election. Then they can either choose to go with winner take all or Play it Safe.

  • steve010

    nt

  • steve010

    leader are considering legislation. Only a complete fool, like BHO, would put up a controversial piece of legislation without first counting the votes. If they didn’t have the votes for this, it wouldn’t go into the hopper.

  • JSobieski

    And that is the key attribute. Geographical compartmentalization is generally good for anti fraud purposes

  • ajshea

    for the good explanation.

    I am concerned about making changes to the electoral system, but we’ve done it before — voters used to vote for the elector, not the candidate.

    As long as only a few states at a time make changes and we can see the results.

  • Pingback: read more

  • Pingback: “An Electoral Facsimile Of Jim Crow”: Virginia Republicans Move Forward With Mass Voter Disenfranchisement « mykeystrokes.com