Pennsylvania republicans try to change Electoral College

[windjammer]

Washington Times:
"The Democratic National Committee is paying for robocalls targeting 10 Republican state senators in Pennsylvania over a GOP plan to change the way that the state awards electoral votes in presidential elections.

“The Republican Party is scheming to rig the next election because they can’t win on the issues,” said the message recorded by former Gov. Ed Rendell. “This plan will diminish Pennsylvania’s importance in future elections and its role as a swing state where candidates spend time and money focusing on issues that are important to Pennsylvanians.”

The calls began going out Monday to voters in 10 state Senate districts, asking voters to pressure the GOP lawmakers to oppose the proposed change. Half of the calls are aimed at senators in the Philadelphia region, including Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi of Chester County, who sponsored the bill.

The measure would apportion Pennsylvania’s electoral votes among presidential candidates based on their percentage of the popular vote, instead of the current winner-take-all system. Two electoral votes would be awarded to the statewide winner.

Democratic presidential candidates have carried Pennsylvania in every election since 1988, largely by building up heavy margins of victory in the Democratic bastion of Philadelphia.

Last week, the DNC urged party members in Pennsylvania to lobby Republican Gov. Tom Corbett against the proposal.

The robocalls were first reported by the Philadelphia Inquirer."

Do you think republicans should do it to win the next presidential election? Personally, they shouldn't do it. It would be difficult for them to win this race without all delegates from Pennsylvania. Winning Virginia and Colorado should be harder for republicans because of immigration.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The measure would apportion Pennsylvania’s electoral votes among presidential candidates based on their percentage of the popular vote, instead of the current winner-take-all system. Two electoral votes would be awarded to the statewide winner.

I'd actually support this system if it were applied nationwide. Of course, implementing it in Dem States only is pathetic.

This will get defeated, right?

[traininthedistance]

The measure would apportion Pennsylvania’s electoral votes among presidential candidates based on their percentage of the popular vote, instead of the current winner-take-all system. Two electoral votes would be awarded to the statewide winner.

I'd actually support this system if it were applied nationwide. Of course, implementing it in Dem States only is pathetic.

This will get defeated, right?

I would not support this idea even if it was in the context of being applied nationwide, because the net effect would be systematic disenfranchisement of urban voters due to "natural packing".

[HiramJohnson]

This plan seems like it would backfire on the GOP.

Don't they actually need to win states like PA and WI outright to get to 270?

[Mehmentum]

This plan seems like it would backfire on the GOP.

Don't they actually need to win states like PA and WI outright to get to 270?

There are some maps it would make a difference with, like this: 272 to 276 without Pennsylvania split.

[Skill and Chance]

This plan seems like it would backfire on the GOP.

Don't they actually need to win states like PA and WI outright to get to 270?

There are some maps it would make a difference with, like this: 272 to 276 without Pennsylvania split.

And this is the map where they screw themselves because PA would split 12R/8D (or 11R/9D depending on how the two Senator EVs are handled) and give the Democrat >270 EV:

Both of these are totally plausible tied 2016 elections IMO so it's not clear who benefits...

[Antonio the Sixth]

The measure would apportion Pennsylvania’s electoral votes among presidential candidates based on their percentage of the popular vote, instead of the current winner-take-all system. Two electoral votes would be awarded to the statewide winner.

I'd actually support this system if it were applied nationwide. Of course, implementing it in Dem States only is pathetic.

This will get defeated, right?

I would not support this idea even if it was in the context of being applied nationwide, because the net effect would be systematic disenfranchisement of urban voters due to "natural packing".

Read again.

[Goldwater]

I think that, if applied nationwide, this would be an interesting way of distributing electoral votes. Although I bet it would be a pain for map makers.

[traininthedistance]

The measure would apportion Pennsylvania’s electoral votes among presidential candidates based on their percentage of the popular vote, instead of the current winner-take-all system. Two electoral votes would be awarded to the statewide winner.

I'd actually support this system if it were applied nationwide. Of course, implementing it in Dem States only is pathetic.

This will get defeated, right?

I would not support this idea even if it was in the context of being applied nationwide, because the net effect would be systematic disenfranchisement of urban voters due to "natural packing".

Read again.

D'oh.  That's embarrassing.

[Skill and Chance]

I think that, if applied nationwide, this would be an interesting way of distributing electoral votes. Although I bet it would be a pain for map makers.

I ran some quick numbers to see how this would work on a nationwide scale.  I assumed purely proportional allocation (i.e. no 2 EV for winning statewide) for all 50 states.  This map shows the # of toss-up EV in each state in a relatively close election:

One important observation is that there would be many fewer competitive EVs in this system.  On this map, only 38 EV would be up for grabs nationwide.  Of course the national PV is rarely outside of 55/45, so this makes some sense.  The next thing that sticks out is the influence of the very largest states.  13 out of the 38 competitive EV are in CA,TX,FL and NY.  By contrast, the 3 EV states will always split 2-1 unless one party can clear 83% (currently only possible in DC).

Curiously, the South would become the most important swing region, with 17 of the 38 competitive EV located there.  This would probably increase the overall influence of both African-American and Evangelical voters.

[Mehmentum]

^
That's not quite correct.  The person who wins the plurality will get the two at large votes, so this actually wouldn't affect to which candidate the 3 ev states give their votes to.

LJ Sabato has an article on this:
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/pondering-pennsylvanias-proportional-plan/

If this were implemented nationwide:
Obama would have gotten 282 EV's to Romney's 255 EVs and Johnson's 1 EV (from California)
In 2000, Bush would have still won (with 280 EVs), to Gore's 255 and Nader's 3.

Interestingly, Nixon instead of Kennedy would have won in 1960.

So pros:
Candidates will pay attention to more than just a few swing states.
Third Parties get EVs

cons:
Larger states are less important (since smaller states will give a larger portion of their votes to the winner).
Doesn't seem to make the candidate who won the national pv more likely to win the ev (and maybe even less likely).

[Skill and Chance]

^
That's not quite correct.  The person who wins the plurality will get the two at large votes, so this actually wouldn't affect to which candidate the 3 ev states give their votes to.

LJ Sabato has an article on this:
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/pondering-pennsylvanias-proportional-plan/

If this were implemented nationwide:
Obama would have gotten 282 EV's to Romney's 255 EVs and Johnson's 1 EV (from California)
In 2000, Bush would have still won (with 280 EVs), to Gore's 255 and Nader's 3.

Interestingly, Nixon instead of Kennedy would have won in 1960.

So pros:
Candidates will pay attention to more than just a few swing states.
Third Parties get EVs

cons:
Larger states are less important (since smaller states will give a larger portion of their votes to the winner).
Doesn't seem to make the candidate who won the national pv more likely to win the ev (and maybe even less likely).

Hmmm... if that's the case, then:

I prefer that we also allocate the senatorial EVs proportionally.  That helps with the malapportionment in the EC with the 3 and 4 EV states and makes it more of a truly national election.

Another downside to either of these systems is that they are more open to rigging by an "unpledged electors" scheme.  The Dixiecrats would have held the balance of power in 1960 and 1968 with this system.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Funny that Nixon would have won.

But anyway, I still think that's a fairer system. At least campaign would extend beyond the 10 traditional swing States.

[windjammer]

Funny that Nixon would have won.

But anyway, I still think that's a fairer system. At least campaign would extend beyond the 10 traditional swing States.

A fairer system? I'm not sure, look Paris with his "arrondissements", it risks to totally screw Morizet in 2014 because she could win popular but would loose election because of the "arrondissements" who tend to favor the left.

[HoosierPoliticalJunkie]

The measure would apportion Pennsylvania’s electoral votes among presidential candidates based on their percentage of the popular vote, instead of the current winner-take-all system. Two electoral votes would be awarded to the statewide winner.

I'd actually support this system if it were applied nationwide. Of course, implementing it in Dem States only is pathetic.

This will get defeated, right?

I would not support this idea even if it was in the context of being applied nationwide, because the net effect would be systematic disenfranchisement of urban voters due to "natural packing".

Yes, if it was done nationwide, then Obama would have lost. 

I support a system, however, of apportioning electoral votes based on percent won.  IE, if it's 10 electoral votes, the winner gets at least 6, and get 7 if they win by at least 3-5%, 8 if they win by at least 8-10%, 9 if they win by at least 11-20%, and 10 if they win by more than 20%, or something to that effect.  This would make it so that each side would have to travel to more states to scrape for electoral votes.

[Skill and Chance]

The measure would apportion Pennsylvania’s electoral votes among presidential candidates based on their percentage of the popular vote, instead of the current winner-take-all system. Two electoral votes would be awarded to the statewide winner.

I'd actually support this system if it were applied nationwide. Of course, implementing it in Dem States only is pathetic.

This will get defeated, right?

I would not support this idea even if it was in the context of being applied nationwide, because the net effect would be systematic disenfranchisement of urban voters due to "natural packing".

Yes, if it was done nationwide, then Obama would have lost. 

I support a system, however, of apportioning electoral votes based on percent won.  IE, if it's 10 electoral votes, the winner gets at least 6, and get 7 if they win by at least 3-5%, 8 if they win by at least 8-10%, 9 if they win by at least 11-20%, and 10 if they win by more than 20%, or something to that effect.  This would make it so that each side would have to travel to more states to scrape for electoral votes.

What you describe is actually the Pennsylvania plan being discussed here, except that the statewide winner automatically gets the extra 2 EV for the Senators.  In our 10 EV narrow win example, the winner would get 7 EV and the loser the other 3.  Obama would have won with about 285 EV under this system.  In a tied national race where one candidate wins 30 states and the other candidate wins 20 larger states (think 2000 or 1960), it helps the candidate who won 30 states even more than the current system does.

I actually prefer the version where the 2 Senator EVs can also split proportionally, because it cuts down on the advantage of one candidate winning more states.  It also takes away some of the outsized influence of the 3 EV states because they are assured to split 2-1 unless one candidate gets >84% of the vote.