Could the 2012 election be decided in the coming months by the Pennsylvania state legislature?
Well, in a way… yeah.
PA Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi wants to allot Pennsylvania’s electoral college votes on a congressional district by district basis, rather than the current system of winner take all.
In a state like Pennsylvania, where Democratic candidates for President have won every election since 1988, it could be a way for Republicans to avoid a total loss.
Pileggi says he wants to change that “winner-take-all system,” and guide the system used in Maine and Nebraska through Pennsylvania’s Legislature this fall, before the 2012 presidential votes are cast. Republicans in both chambers say the bill has a strong chance of moving fast enough to be approved for next year.
“The system we have now, is a winner-take-all system, the system I am proposing would more precisely conform the electoral college to the popular vote and it would make the presidential election more relevant across the state, give voters more of a sense that they are active participants in the presidential election.”
As PoliticsPa notes, in 2008, that would have meant President Barack Obama, who won the state 21-0 under the current winner-takes-all law, would have won by a mere 11-10, if Pileggi’s law was in place. Mind you, Obama won Pennsylvania, 55 percent to 44 percent; it is quite possible he will underperform that total. Also note that the state’s U.S. House delegation shifted from 12 Democrats and 7 Republicans to 12 Republicans and 7 Democrats in 2010. The state is losing one congressional district in the coming redistricting.
If Republicans wanted to muscle it through, they would have the votes; the GOP holds a 30-20 majority in the Senate, and a 112-90 majority in the House, and Governor Tom Corbett is a Republican, who has already indicated support for the idea.
Moving 10 to 12 votes from Obama to the Republican would drastically alter the calculation to reach 270 electoral votes, with Obama’s chances of retaining Indiana almost nil, and North Carolina, Virginia, Florida, New Hampshire, Ohio and that lone elector in Nebraska looking quite iffy.
UPDATE: A surprisingly good article about the proposal from… Mother Jones. Really.
After their epic sweep of state legislative and gubernatorial races in 2010, Republicans also have total political control of Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin, three other big states that traditionally go Democratic and went for Obama in 2012.
Nor is there anything obviously illegal or unconstitutional about the GOP plan. “The Constitution is pretty silent on how the electors are chosen in each state,” says Karl Manheim, a law professor at Loyola University in Los Angeles. The GOP plan “would certainly increase the political advantage of politically gerrymandering your districts,” he adds.
For now, the Democrats’—and Obama’s—only real way of fighting back is political. “The political solution if there is one is going to have to come from getting people outraged about this,” [Akhil Reed Amar, a constitutional law professor at Yale University] says. “This is not American fair play, it’s a partisan steamroller changing the fundamental rules of the small-d democratic game for purely party advantage. Trying to structure the world so that even the person who wins the state loses the state’s electoral vote: that is new under the sun.” He adds, “This is big.”
That article notes that there are no equivalent opportunities on the other side, states where Democrats have legislative majorities in state that is reliably Republican in presidential races. West Virginia, Mississippi, and Arkansas come closest, and it’s not clear Obama would win many districts in those states.
The heat that would come on Pennsylvania GOP legislators would make the Wisconsin protests look like a tersely-worded letter of disapproval. Some Republicans are likely to be wary of a proposal that appears to “changing the rules after the game has started.”
But most of these states have a simple political geography: vast swaths of Republican-leaning rural and sometimes suburban districts balanced by, and sometimes outweighted, by densely-packed, deeply Democratic urban districts. It’s not surprising that frustrated Republicans would tire of seeing their votes rendered moot by high (some would argue suspiciously high) turnout in Philadelphia, Cleveland, Detroit, Milwaukee, etc. often gives Democrats the edge in these key states.
The prize for the audacious move would be enormous for Republicans: They would establish, arguably, a GOP lock on the presidency until the country’s demographics and political geography changed.
I can't believe States are willing to do this... I can understand why the GOP would do it. It doesn't seem like it's worth the political backlash.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFor 2012, it would probably help Republicans, even considering that the state could flip due to Obama’s low popularity in the state. Assuming Obama hangs on to win the state overall, he would only receive about half of the state’s electoral votes, give or take a couple. So, he could end up with 12 rather than 20 EV, an 8 EV swing. Supposing that the whole state swings to the Republican, Republicans then are worse off, taking far fewer than all 20 EV, but what are the chances that PA’s popular vote goes to the Republican while Obama wins Florida and Ohio? Our nominee might very well win PA, but in that case, Obama’s probably already lost elsewhere. It is Obama, not the Republican, who most desperately needs the bitter clingers’ votes.
Beyond 2012, who knows what PA does politically? It’s one of those states that could become more red than blue. It’s also a state that Republican could easily place false hope in. Neither party can count on PA to be loyal to them.
I wonder how popular the measure would be with the people though. Dividing up votes like that would make PA much less important in the general election, making each PA voter less important to the outcome of each presidential election. Pennsylvania voters may view this measure as a partisan stunt, just as many of us viewed it as a partisan stunt when people were pushing Coloradoans to split their electoral votes. I would think twice about going this way if I were an elected officeholder in PA.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Dividing up votes like that would make PA much less important in the general election, making each PA voter less important to the outcome of each presidential election."
I'm not sure about that statement. Putting more EVs into play in Pennsylvania would only make it more vital to campaign in.
Look at California. The GOP is not in play for those EVs. How much time is really spent trying to get those votes? What if the GOP could capture some of them? Apply this to Penna. and I think we'd see more presence on the national stage.
Heck, at least it would let folks know that we're not all Rockerfeller Republicans in the state.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is a great idea and more states should follow suit. Republicans will no longer have to overcome the margin of fraud that comes out of Philli/Pitt. Congressional candidates in the suburbs would get a boos in spending and GOTV since there is more at stake even if a Presidential cnadidate is down 6 points statewide they can pick up a number fo these districts. MI and Wi should follow as well, essentially banking 20-25 EV's for the GOP. It's a better way to allocate electors than teh "popular vote" initiative that is being pushed.
Th GOP should not unilaterally disarm. i.e TX doesn't change unless California does, etc.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI've always maintained that in order for a reform to succeed it must be defensible as serving no particular interest, but must in fact serve some particular interest.
A number of states have considered this change, but it requires an unusual set of circumstances for it to be in anyone's interest. The state must be likely to go to one party in the presidential election, but the other party must have control of the entire state government. I think this is the first time such a concatenation of circumstances has actually occurred in recent years.
Of course, always a chance this will backfire, if PA goes GOP and they only get half the EVs, it could possibly be the difference the other way.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI was thinking the exact same about the backfire. PA just elected a GOP governor and a GOP senator in statewide elections - and that was without even having a toxic Obama on the ballot for the GOP to oppose. It is highly likely the GOP could win PA and ALL its electoral votes outright if it doesn't make a change.
Considering PA has been a swing state in most recent elections, this plan would make the state unimportant. No matter what happens, the electoral votes would to parse out close to 50-50. But with the winner take all system, the swing state means this state gets more attention and each vote cast becomes more important. It also means the democrats have to pour tens of millions into PA in order to keep it from changing color - that keeps them from spending that money in other states like Ohio where a GOP loss would be devastating.
A split system would really ONLY benefit the GOP in a state like California, where there is 98% certainty it goes democrat, but a proportional split could potentially toss 20 electoral votes from democrat to GOP. In a climate where even NY-9 goes GOP, I just don't see this system benefiting the GOP anywhere else.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePA is not a "swing state", OH is. The GOP only wins the state in landslide elections. Candidates will campaign for single electors. Obama did this for the NE elector he won. MI should adopt a dimilar system, essentially banking the PA equivalent electors for the GOP. WI should as well, but with the PEU's essentially neutered and only a 1 vote margin in the state senate with a squish it most likely won't hzppen there.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYears ago, the GOP took a whipping in Penna. due to a "throw the bums out" attitude, sparked by a legislative pay raise. They battled back with good candidates and promises to clean out corruption, such as "Bonusgate."
I don't know how this will play out. The same people who voted out the GOP and complained against corruption have no love for Philly. On top of that, we're dealing with cronyism in Harrisburg (city, not as legislature). The state may likely be on the hook for millions because Steven Reid made a ton of backroom deals that blew up. The new Mayor, Thompson, is hopelessly out of her depth and is - to be kind - does not play well with others.
This plan may pass through without major issue, other than the Philly uproar and the media complaints. However, if this makes Pennsylvania a much more likely "swing state," it may make it more important to national candidates.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMassachusetts would approve .... but only if it helps a Democrat. Just ask Mitt Romney.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf this proposal were adopted nationally... wouldn't that in effect mean something very similar to the parliamentary systems in Europe? Where who gets to lead the country is decided by how many seats their party wins in an election?
No wonder Mother Jones seems to like the idea. Not sure if I do.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Yale professor is either inexcusably ignorant or deliberately dishonest. Nebraska splits their electors, so what's all this "new under the sun" nonsense?
As far as the measure itself is concerned, I am hesitant to support it. It is mirrored by the efforts to get states to deliver all electoral votes to the candidate with the highest national total, which I think clearly violates the Constitution's attempt to keep small states from being steamrolled by big ones. The electoral college has worked for a long time, and should be allowed to continue as is.
On the other hand, I live in one of those states dominated by a large metro area that ignores the outstate rural folks. Anything that nullifies the voter fraud in big cities that typically steals states for Democratic presidential candidates deserves serious attention.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"It is mirrored by the efforts to get states to deliver all electoral votes to the candidate with the highest national total, which I think clearly violates the Constitution's attempt to keep small states from being steamrolled by big ones."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExactly. This movement, along with all other movements to subvert the purpose of the electoral college is clearly a slap in the framers' faces and their reasons for establishing the EC, which was an act of political brilliance and prescience. If the people don't like the EC, they should to amend the Constitution the proper way.
The Constitution says and I'm going from memory here. Each state shall determine the time, place and manner of chhosing their electors. So this is within PA rights. To go with a national popular vote would require ammending the Constitution.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt doesn't subvert the purpose of the electoral college in any way, shape, or form.
And there's no amendment necessary, because the Constitution gives the state legislatures exclusive and total authority to prescribe the manner in which electors are selected. They could do it any way they choose -- by lottery, by election, or by reading the spots on the side of a cow.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTo be fair, Picking elections based on the spots on the side of a cow might be an improvement.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is such a short-sighted political move. Not only could it wind up costing the Republicans electoral votes in the not unlikely event that the GOP nominee wins the state, it just sets a bad precedent for interfering with the electoral college system. I really wish legislators would actually think through the long-term ramifications of their proposals.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHaven't other states already done this?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExactly! Maine and Nebraska already do this and if anyone thinks any state Dems controlled wouldn't do this if it helped are delusional! This will not cause judicial overreach that wouldn't already happen or any other political game. Haven't we seen enough voter fraud, dead voters, boxes of found ballots etc??? How fair did Dems play in MN senate race? Senator Franken ring any bells???
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe only other states to split their electoral votes this way in the modern era are Maine (since 1972) and Nebraska (since 1992).
But since Maine has only 2 congressional districts, and Nebraska has 3, they haven't experienced the kind of splits that Pennsylvania undoubtedly would if the bill passes. The only split that has actually occurred in either state since it began to split its electoral votes came in 2008, when Obama won one of the congressional districts in Nebraska.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJust abolish this anachronism once and for all. Cordially, Bill
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse