Pennsylvania is considering allocating their electoral votes by Congressional district instead of letting the winner take all the votes. This is mainly a ploy to aid Obama’s opponent in 2012, since Pennsylvania has been a pretty reliable state for Democrats at the Presidential level, even though it has quite a few Republican districts. Dave Weigel reports that the origin of this law to a Republican advocacy group, and he thinks it probably won’t pass.
I’m pretty much in agreement with Atrios — it’s a short-term issue for Democrats but states have the right to do it, and others have already done it. What bothers me about this whole discussion is that we had a wake-up call about the Electoral College in 2000, and the only thing we did was to put a bunch of money into the pockets of people who make electronic voting machines. There wasn’t any kind of debate about representative voting.
Also, too: it’s beyond infuriating that part of the reason some states want to cling to the Electoral College is that it’s more exciting for them, because they get more attention from the teevee since they are the possible locations where democracy goes to die.
cleek
psst: 2012
Odie Hugh Manatee
What bothers me is that either party can manipulate election outcomes in an attempt to position their party for a win and it just seems fine with most people. In a just society, good rules would be followed and not circumvented creatively.
But then again we’re not a just society, we don’t have good rules and creatively circumventing laws and rules seems to be a sport that many cheer.
mistermix
@cleek: Thanks
zmulls
I can’t see PA giving up the huge bucket of TV and radio advertising revenue, or polling revenue…..or hotel and restaurant revenue from the campaigns and the press….or the constant television coverage of the state…….
And there may be one or two Republicans in the State House and Senate who still believe in comity…
evap
The problem is that there is no good way to choose someone (based on voters’ preferences among the candidates) for elected office if there are more than two candidates — this is a theorem (Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem). Having a direct election with more than two candidates can result in a winner who is ranked last by a majority of the voters. The prime example of this is the Minnesota governor’s race in which Jesse Ventura won. Also, the Florida presidential race in 2000.
El Cid
__
That’s because the right person “won”. Had Gore not won that final 5-4 election, trust me, there would have been hellish screaming about how the electoral system was broken at all levels.
ant
Republicans wish to extent their unfair advantage in the house to the executive.
It seems to me, that now would be a good time for dems to point out how fucked up the house is. And why.
Xenos
I am sure there are plenty of political scientists who have gamed this out in some detail, but this sounds like the sort of thing, like the various gerrymandering redistricting efforts, that can extend out the time that the Republican have power, but will utterly and completely sink the Republicans once a demographic tipping point is reached.
In the mean-time, this can still help. I would think half the PA districts are in the bag for Democrats come hell or high water. Write off the rest and sink double the resources into NC.
Xenos
I am sure there are plenty of political scientists who have gamed this out in some detail, but this sounds like the sort of thing, like the various gerrymandering redistricting efforts, that can extend out the time that the Republican have power, but will utterly and completely sink the Republicans once a demographic tipping point is reached.
In the mean-time, this can still help. I would think half the PA districts are in the bag for Democrats come hell or high water. Write off the rest and sink double the resources into NC.
Marc
Swing states get a lot of concrete benefits from the current system. It’s not just TV – it’s bridges, and military bases, and a lot of money injected by campaigns.
And, no, it isn’t the same in a state with 20 congressional districts as it is in one with 2 or 3. Ohio, for example, just drew a severely gerrymandered map where Republicans are certain to win 10, Democrats are certain to win 4. and 2 lean strongly republican. The Pennsylvannia scheme would guarantee any republican candidate 10 out of 18 electoral votes, effectively disenfranchising numerous people.
Saying “so what” to outcomes like that is not acceptable.
MikeBoyScout
Funny.
Some seem to think we live in a free & fair democratic state.
We don’t. Not yet. And no one is going to hand it to us.
Agoraphobic Kleptomaniac
The thing that grinds my gears about this is that election tampering should be a republican party platform, since they always exploit the system to benefit them in any way possible.
If there’s a state where allocating electoral votes by congressional district adds to democratic totals, then repubs want to leave it allocated by state, but if it’s a democratic state, they want to allocate it by congressional district.
Dems need to start throwing elbows at republicans for this.
weasel
Always a good time to plug the National Popular Vote plan!
If someone tells you that we cannot get rid of the Electoral College without amending the Constitution, send them that link.
kwAwk
Don’t underestimate the fact that our system of voting never changes because both political parties have a vested interest in it staying the same.
Right now most every elected office is traded back and forth between the two parties. Any attempt to allow a third party to gain elected offices weakens both parties, so both parties will fight to the death to make sure it never happens.
mick
there is no such thing as a wake-up call anymore. this nation is sleepwalking to the cliff, in maximum denial mode.
Hawes
I am hopeful this doesn’t pass. I think if it did, it is highly likely that Obama could win the popular vote nationally AND in PA, but lose the EC vote because of this new rule.
Ask ABL how African-Americans view the unprecedented – literally – disrespect shown Obama by the GOP. Whites see it as excessive polarization, blacks see it as something very different. If Obama loses because the GOP changes the rules in the middle of his presidency, I can guarantee blood in the streets and a crisis of legitimacy for President Romney (even Pennsyltucky won’t vote for Perry).
More so than the flaws in the Electoral College, this would show the real danger that gerrymandering is causing our democracy.
Kenneth Fair
These sorts of shenanigans are why the National Popular Vote Compact is a better way to go.
Irony Abounds
@Marc: You’re exactly right. In Nebraska and Maine you don’t have gerrymandered districts that almost guarantee that even a candidate that loses the popular vote in a state will do no worse than break even in that state’s electoral vote. Moreover, it puts cities at yet another disadvantage in the electoral process. I’m surprised Atrios doesn’t recognize this.
Steve
@Kenneth Fair: The National Popular Vote Compact very likely violates the Compacts Clause of the Constitution, unless Congress goes along with it as well.
Arclite
Given that I’m only the 20th comment, I guess a lot of people don’t care about this issue.
Personally, there needs to be a constitutional amendment to make the presidency determined by the popular vote.
bob h
I’m not a lawyer, but imagine that an inconsistent, ever-changing method of allocating electoral votes constitutes an Equal Protection violation.
low-tech cyclist
I have to disagree with Atrios. There’s nothing fair about this. The principled objection is simple: this is about an eradication of small-d democracy, it’s about making sure one side – ours – can’t win even if they get a pretty significant majority of the popular vote.
If, say, PA, WI, and MI all went this route, their 46 EVs would be basically split, rather than going Democratic as they have in the past 5 Presidential elections. Rather than each side needing to win states with 270 EVs, we’d need to win states with 293 EVs to win (we just wouldn’t get all of their EVs), and they’d need to win states with 247 EVs to win (but they’d get a bunch of additional EVs in states that they’ll lose).
They’ve got the pistol, so they get the pesos. Yeah, that seems fair.