Pennsylvania proposes allocating electoral votes by Congressional distrct

[Brittain33]

I don't favor this proposal, but it is both constitutional and fair.

I don't favor this proposal because it is unconstitutional and it is unfair. What's more, it is quite unconstitutional and very unfair.

Are you leading the hunger strikes in Maine and Nebraska, too?

No, I am not.

[Landslide Lyndon]

The comparison with Maine and Nebraska is disingenuous.

1)Both are small, non-swing states that are unlikely to decide a close election.

2)Gerrymandering is not a problem in these states.

3)The popular vote winner is guaranteed to take the majority of electoral votes (3 out of 5 from Nebraska and 3 out of 4 from Maine), while the opposite is very possible in Pennsylvania.

[Sbane]

JJ, until you take gerrymandering out of the process, this cannot be fair. And it might hurt reps in the future. I have a Democratic gerrymander of PA in the works. I will unfurl it soon someday tuned to the P&G board.

[Keystone Phil]

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.

[Keystone Phil]

The comparison with Maine and Nebraska is disingenuous.

1)Both are small, non-swing states that are unlikely to decide a close election.

So that makes it fair and, more importantly, Constitutional? Huh?

[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

[Brittain33]

The comparison with Maine and Nebraska is disingenuous.

1)Both are small, non-swing states that are unlikely to decide a close election.

So that makes it fair and, more importantly, Constitutional? Huh?

It makes it the equivalent of jaywalking vs. highway robbery. It's the difference between a serious injustice and a trivial issue. There's virtually no scenario where splitting electoral votes in NE and ME gets the minority more than 20-25% of the electoral votes, and that is only in a landslide election for the minority party. In Pennsylvania, the minority could win a majority of electoral votes in a close election and gerrymandering comes into play.

You're not a stupid person, Phil, you understand the concept here and the distinction. It's ok if you don't accept it for whatever reason, but don't play dumb.

Do you not understand the concept of shades of gray vs. total right-and-wrong?

[Torie]

I don't favor this proposal, but it is both constitutional and fair.

I don't favor this proposal because it is unconstitutional and it is unfair. What's more, it is quite unconstitutional and very unfair.

I am close to believing that if this Frankenstein were brought to life, the odds are close to 100% that SCOTUS would kill it. Yes, 100%. I know as a Justice that I would, and I'm a Pubbie! 

[rob in cal]

Sbane, I'd be intrested in seeing your PA gerrymander.  I'd like to see one where the Philly districts are chopped up and split up over the entire eastern Pennsylvania area, giving Dems a victory chance throughout the region.

[Keystone Phil]

The comparison with Maine and Nebraska is disingenuous.

1)Both are small, non-swing states that are unlikely to decide a close election.

So that makes it fair and, more importantly, Constitutional? Huh?

It makes it the equivalent of jaywalking vs. highway robbery. It's the difference between a serious injustice and a trivial issue. There's virtually no scenario where splitting electoral votes in NE and ME gets the minority more than 20-25% of the electoral votes, and that is only in a landslide election for the minority party. In Pennsylvania, the minority could win a majority of electoral votes in a close election and gerrymandering comes into play.

You're not a stupid person, Phil, you understand the concept here and the distinction. It's ok if you don't accept it for whatever reason, but don't play dumb.

Do you not understand the concept of shades of gray vs. total right-and-wrong?

That's your argument for it being unfair. Fine. You still haven't explained why it's unconstitutional and worthy of outcry in one situation but not in the other.

[Iosif]

Ugh, let this thread die already.

[Torie]

The comparison with Maine and Nebraska is disingenuous.

1)Both are small, non-swing states that are unlikely to decide a close election.

So that makes it fair and, more importantly, Constitutional? Huh?

It makes it the equivalent of jaywalking vs. highway robbery. It's the difference between a serious injustice and a trivial issue. There's virtually no scenario where splitting electoral votes in NE and ME gets the minority more than 20-25% of the electoral votes, and that is only in a landslide election for the minority party. In Pennsylvania, the minority could win a majority of electoral votes in a close election and gerrymandering comes into play.

You're not a stupid person, Phil, you understand the concept here and the distinction. It's ok if you don't accept it for whatever reason, but don't play dumb.

Do you not understand the concept of shades of gray vs. total right-and-wrong?

That's your argument for it being unfair. Fine. You still haven't explained why it's unconstitutional and worthy of outcry in one situation but not in the other.

The Nebraska and Maine thing has not been tested in the courts. Why?  Because until 2008 it made zero difference. It violates the one man, one vote principle.  It denies a republican form of government. It does not comport with the intent of the founders, who never envisioned gerrymanders leading to a very biased electoral college. SCOTUS will reach to kill it. It would lead to electoral chaos.  The Pubs could do it in Ohio, Michigan,  Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, and not do it in NC, North Carolina, Texas and Florida. What larger state with a GOP lean do the Dems control?  None. A GOP POTUS "elected" under this regime would have no legitimacy whatsoever, if he "won" while losing the popular vote by 6% or something. Enough said.

[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

[Torie]

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

If Obama has won in 2008 by one electoral vote, SCOTUS would have decided this issue already btw.

[Sbane]

Sbane, I'd be intrested in seeing your PA gerrymander.  I'd like to see one where the Philly districts are chopped up and split up over the entire eastern Pennsylvania area, giving Dems a victory chance throughout the region.

Oh if I did that then I could finish off the pubbies in Pennsylvania (ok, maybe a slight exaggeration) but no, I did not do that. I kept the two district at about 44% Black VAP. I will post it soon, no worries.

[J. J.]

JJ, until you take gerrymandering out of the process, this cannot be fair. And it might hurt reps in the future. I have a Democratic gerrymander of PA in the works. I will unfurl it soon someday tuned to the P&G board.

And I'd call that Democratic gerrymander fair, so long as it meets the constitutional requirements.  This is, "We don't like it, therefor it is unfair."

[Devils30]

While the constitution is silent on this issue, anyone challenging it can make a strong case that it violates the equal protection clause as the clear motive of the legislature would be to make a 55-45% GOP victory in one district count as much as a 90-10 Dem. victory in another. A key difference is that the state's borders are fixed while each district's borders can be manipulated every decade. Not to mention the packing of minority voters into heavily Democratic districts will is allowed for redistricting but the fact that this plan is designed to dilute their statewide influence likely violates the VRA.

[rob in cal]

    I'd be interested to hear from our Pennsylvania people about the impact of Governor Corbett's support on the chances of this happening.  He spoke quite favorably about it yesterday.

   Also, it would be nice if it was introduced in a less gerrymandered environment, say one in which it was likely that the Dem candidate was likely to win an amount of EV's fairly close to his statewide percentage anyway.  That way supporters of the change could argue that the electoral vote change was merely creating a result more in proportion to the true state of political feeling in the state.

[J. J.]

    I'd be interested to hear from our Pennsylvania people about the impact of Governor Corbett's support on the chances of this happening.  He spoke quite favorably about it yesterday.

   Also, it would be nice if it was introduced in a less gerrymandered environment, say one in which it was likely that the Dem candidate was likely to win an amount of EV's fairly close to his statewide percentage anyway.  That way supporters of the change could argue that the electoral vote change was merely creating a result more in proportion to the true state of political feeling in the state.

I'm glad I didn't contribute to Tom Corbett, Space Cadet.

It's a terrible idea that is both constitutional and fair.

[Sbane]

JJ, until you take gerrymandering out of the process, this cannot be fair. And it might hurt reps in the future. I have a Democratic gerrymander of PA in the works. I will unfurl it soon someday tuned to the P&G board.

And I'd call that Democratic gerrymander fair, so long as it meets the constitutional requirements.  This is, "We don't like it, therefor it is unfair."

No, no, no. Gerrymandering is wrong no matter who it is done by. Not to mention if the Dems were gerrymandering now, you would find some way of finding a problem with it, while the same  people up in arms about current Republican gerrymandering would be quiet or even supportive.

[Brittain33]

That's your argument for it being unfair. Fine. You still haven't explained why it's unconstitutional and worthy of outcry in one situation but not in the other.

Re: unconstitutional, I said further up thread that it looked like a potential Baker v. Carr situation where a minority of the popular vote could get a majority of the electoral vote with the kind of gerrymandering and concentration of Dem voters in cities that you see in Pennsylvania.

As for why it's worthy of outcry in one situation but not the other, I feel like I've mentioned it at least twice. The only way an electoral vote in NE or ME, and it's only going to be one, is going to swing toward the minority party is if the minority party is going to win a large victory in the national elections. It's functionally irrelevant to any outcome. With PA, the stakes are a lot higher, and there is gerrymandering and voter concentration at play. If PA had 2 or 3 districts, it would hardly matter.

[Brittain33]

Note that while the NE split helped Obama pad his victory in 2008, the Maine split is only going to come into play to help a Republican candidate if he wins ME-2, so I don't have any partisan reasons to support it.

[J. J.]

JJ, until you take gerrymandering out of the process, this cannot be fair. And it might hurt reps in the future. I have a Democratic gerrymander of PA in the works. I will unfurl it soon someday tuned to the P&G board.

And I'd call that Democratic gerrymander fair, so long as it meets the constitutional requirements.  This is, "We don't like it, therefor it is unfair."

No, no, no. Gerrymandering is wrong no matter who it is done by. Not to mention if the Dems were gerrymandering now, you would find some way of finding a problem with it, while the same  people up in arms about current Republican gerrymandering would be quiet or even supportive.

You have never heard me criticize NE or ME, and NE did benefit Obama.  I recognize that that the states can do it.  I think, in this case, it has some negative drawbacks, from both an R and D perspective.  It certainly would diminish the importance of PA in presidential elections.

This is just an example of, "We don't like it, therefor it is unfair."

[J. J.]

That's your argument for it being unfair. Fine. You still haven't explained why it's unconstitutional and worthy of outcry in one situation but not in the other.

Re: unconstitutional, I said further up thread that it looked like a potential Baker v. Carr situation where a minority of the popular vote could get a majority of the electoral vote with the kind of gerrymandering and concentration of Dem voters in cities that you see in Pennsylvania.

By using that standard, you would have to claim that all Representative from the state have to be from the same party.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, and they are higher still in Texas.  It would make Texas doing this wrong.

[Brittain33]

By using that standard, you would have to claim that all Representative from the state have to be from the same party.

No, I wouldn't.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Right, I agree that it would be wrong for Texas to do this.