Pennsylvania proposes allocating electoral votes by Congressional distrct

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

We already have a gerrymandered electorate.  If you live in Utah your vote matters much less than to the west or east where Nevada and Colorado are swing states.  In Texas my vote matters less than it would in New Mexico.

Gerrymandering it more for political reasons is obvious.  Last I heard Nebraska wanted to get rid of the way they chose their electors because of 2008.  I would oppose this even in states where it would let the Democrats have some electoral votes. 

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

Yes the Democrats might just win a few electoral votes from Pennsylvania under this plan.  Like they did  in

2008
2004
2000
1996
1992

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

People are seriously arguing this is fair?

Pennsylvania is a Democratic state.

Republican Governor/Lt. Governor, Republican U.S. Senator, Republican Attorney General, Republican State Senate (30-20), Republican State House (112-91), Republican majority in the House delegation (12-7).

Yeah, definitely not a swing state.

2008 - Democratic
2004 - Democratic
2000 - Democratic
1996 - Democratic
1992 - Democratic

Yeah that looks like a swing state to me!  

Local politics =/= National politics

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

On a related note there was talk in Nebraska about returning to a winner-take-all system
http://www.omaha.com/article/20110209/NEWS01/702099866/0?wpisrc=nl_fix

I have not heard anything recently so I'm unsure if it went anywhere

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

Wouldn't it be ironic if the GOP passed this and Obama ended up losing the state, but winning enough electoral votes to have a second term.

Then again if Obama losses Pennsylvania he would lose the election and we'd be looking at 300+ electoral votes for the GOP.

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

If this does happen I could easily see the Democratic base getting motivated again.  Being a a blatant political maneuver even though it would cost Democrats electoral votes in Pennsylvania even a small increase of 2% of Democratic turnout could cost the GOP Virginia, Ohio and Florida again and maybe even a dozen or so additional House seats.

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

If this does happen I could easily see the Democratic base getting motivated again.  Being a a blatant political maneuver even though it would cost Democrats electoral votes in Pennsylvania even a small increase of 2% of Democratic turnout could cost the GOP Virginia, Ohio and Florida again and maybe even a dozen or so additional House seats.

This would have zero direct effect in other states.  It really only would interest only political junkies. 

Indirectly, candidates might spend less money in Pennsylvania, probably in the Pittsburgh media market (which is another reason why it is a bad idea), and possibly several in the "T."  They would have more money to spend elsewhere.

That's right, those who are politically active would see what is going on.  It could easily be used by the DNC as a fundraising opportunity and people like me who are very active who never donate will end up giving money for the first time.

As for less money in Pennsylvania that depends.  Depending on how the GOP in Pennsylvania draws the congressional map there could be one swing district around Pittsburgh that the parties could put money into.  Also the Philadelphia suburbs may have a certain degree of swing in 2012.  It would see less attention.

Then again I don't know if the GOP has enough power to make this change, I think they will collapse under pressure

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

Irony alert:

Article on meeting of Nebraska GOP:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not surprising

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

There is one other scenario to consider:

In 2008 Obama did better in the key swing states than he did nationally.  If you subtract his margin of victory nationally (7.27%) from every state resulting in a popular vote tie, he would still win 281 to 257 in EVs.  In fact a GOP candidate would have had to win by a popular vote switch margin of 9.5% (that is win the popular vote nationally by 2.23%) to win in the Electoral college .

So in 2012 Obama could easily win in the electoral college but lose the popular vote by more than 2%, all because PA didn't change their Electoral vote allocation.

Thus to better reflect the will of the nation, PA must change their EV allocation method!

If Obama wins 2012 with losing the popular vote I wonder if the GOP would then be in favor of electing the President by popular vote.  Then again I wonder if Democrats would still be in favor of it.  

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

"Certainly, from the standpoint of a Republican, it's a winner," Santorum said. "Republicans will come out ahead in Pennsylvania in every election. The way Democrats win, they have two big cities with huge concentrations of voters -- and then overwhelm the rest of the state."

"All of a sudden, a Republican can win -- and would probably routinely win -- all but three or four congressional districts in Pennsylvania," he said. "It would turn it from a state Democrats rely on, as part of the base, to a state that they're gonna lose under almost any scenario."


These Santorum quotes show why this plan would be ripe for a constitutional challenge.

I never understood why the conservatives tend to hate on the voters in cities.  Seriously if a state casts its electoral votes winner-take-all a voter in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and Scranton matter as much as a voter in a rural county.

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

The electoral college shouldn't be gotten rid of completely. An electoral system using only the popular vote would favor larger states at the expense of smaller ones, and would basically insure that only populous states would see investment by both parties. At least the electoral college guarantees that every state has a fair chance of influencing a presidential election, even if some have a more disproportionate influence than others. Frankly the idea of making the electoral college determined by congressional district nationwide would be the best reform, and might lead to more competitive congressional elections as a result. It would almost be like the constituency system used under the Westminster system. Pennsylvania should go the way of changing the way it awards it electoral votes, and Nebraska should keep the system the way it is.

So an electoral system which favors one person one vote is unfair to the small states?

Small states don't see much investment now.  Most of the small states are safe states.

With a national popular vote there is a reason for Democrats to go to Cheyenne and for Republicans to go to Montpelier.  As for big cities, it would give the Republicans a reason to go to Los Angeles and Democrats a reason to go to Houston and that is despite Wyoming, Vermont, California and Texas being classified as safe states

Edit: Small states, I'm saying 5 electoral votes or less is a small state.

Safe D/Likely D
Vermont
Delaware
D.C.
Maine
Hawaii
Rhode Island
New Mexico

Safe R/Likely R
Alaska
Wyoming
Montana
Idaho
South Dakota
North Dakota
West Virginia
Nebraska

Toss-Up
New Hampshire

The "small states won't get attention" argument doesn't hold water because most small states receive minimal attention now

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

An unsurprising finish