Electoral vote change bad idea
You’ve heard the old clichéW Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.
Republican Pennsylvania lawmakers might want to keep that in mind as they continue their relentless, thus far quixotic, efforts to game the state’s electoral system to “help” GOP presidential candidates.
)LUsW FaPH WKH KaP-fisWHG anG KRUULEOy LPSOHPHnWHG 9RWHU ,D rule, designed to deliver the state to Mitt Romney (as a Pennsylvania House leader was caught on video admitting).
Next was the proposal to award the state’s electoral votes by congressional district — as opposed to the winner-take-all method Pennsylvania and the vast majority of other states curUHnWOy KaYH Ln SOaFH. ,f WKaW KaG EHHn Ln SOaFH Ln WKH OasW SUHsLGHntial election, Mitt Romney would have “won” Pennsylvania, gaining more electoral votes than President Obama — despite the fact that Mr. Obama had a solid majority of the statewide vote. That’s because Republicans have done an effective job of gerrymandering congressional districts in the state.
Now comes a “new and improved” electoral proposal from state Senate Majority Leader Mitch Pileggi. Under Pileggi’s new plan, 18 electoral votes would be awarded proportionally according to the statewide vote, with two more awarded to the statewide winner.
That’s a little bit better than the previous plan. The “loser” of the statewide vote couldn’t win the state under such a scenario. But what is the virtue of this idea? ,W EasLFaOOy WaNHs 3HnnsyOYanLa Rff WKH WaEOH as a naWLRnaO player in the presidential election. Rather than get the attention of candidates as a nominal “swing state,” it will be ignored, as it would always be a virtual wash for the major party candidates.
,W sHHPs 5HSuEOLFans WKLnN WKaW Lf WKHy Fan JHW aW OHasW a KanGful of electoral votes out of Pennsylvania, that would be a win for the party candidate. Perhaps.
Or perhaps this system could lead to a narrow presidential ORss fRU sRPH fuWuUH G23 SUHsLGHnWLaO FanGLGaWH. ,nsWHaG Rf JHWting all of the heystone state’s electoral votes, that candidate would get just a share — and that could be the difference between winning and losing a national election.
,f WKH PRWLYH fRU FKanJLnJ WKH sysWHP Ls WR EHWWHU UHflHFW WKH will of the entire Pennsylvania electorate, there’s a much better way: 6LJn Rn WR WKH 1aWLRnaO 3RSuOaU 9RWH LnLWLaWLYH.
Here’s how it worksW Enabling legislation is passed in states promising to award all of that state’s electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. That change is put on hold until states with 270 electoral votes — enough to win the presidency — pass the enabling legislation.
No constitutional amendment needed, no need to expel the Electoral College.
So far, that legislation has been passed by states with 132 electoral votes.
Once the initiative becomes active, we can be assured the winner of the national popular vote will win the election — and that everyone’s vote for president counts, whether they live in the cities or countryside, in Texas, a “red” state, Massachusetts, a “blue” state, or Pennsylvania, a “purple” state. Most people — conservative or liberal — can agree that the person who gets the most votes nationwide should be president.
3assLnJ 1aWLRnaO 3RSuOaU 9RWH OHJLsOaWLRn wRuOG EH PuFK more productive on the part of Pileggi and his GOP colleagues. $nG PuFK OHss OLNHOy WR EaFNfiUH Rn WKHP OaWHU. Journal Register News Service