Tweet
I wanted to circle back to this story which I mentioned in last night's Roundup, about a Pennsylvania proposal to apportion electoral votes by Congressional district.
The way it works now, the presidential and vice-presidential slate that wins the state gets all of the electoral votes.
In 2012, after redistricting, Pennsylvania will have 20 electoral votes and 18 congressional districts. Under Pileggi’s proposal, each of the districts would elect one presidential elector; the other two would be apportioned on the basis of the popular vote.
Only two other states allocate electoral votes by congressional district, Maine and Nebraska.
If this was in place in 2008, Barack Obama would have taken 11 electoral votes from Pennsylvania, and John McCain 10. This is nothing more than a ploy to distribute 9-12 electoral votes to Republicans from a state won by Democrats in every Presidential election since 1992. Now, there’s polling showing that Republicans may have a shot in Pennsylvania next year, which would reverse the impact of this. But with Republicans in the legislature and the Republican governor proposing it, they are clearly setting out to kneecap the Democrats.
Consider that this proposal is somewhat similar, though not entirely, to the National Popular Vote compact which several states have passed. Under that law, states would give their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. The catch is that the NPV would only go into effect if enough states signed on equaling 270 votes, or enough to mean that the national popular vote would determine the winner of the Presidential election. I believe in the NPV to rid ourselves of this ridiculous and distorting Electoral College system. The apportionment by Congressional district doesn’t remedy that: it doesn’t account for wide disparities in voting between Congressional districts (a district where a Democratic Presidential candidate wins by 40 points and a district where a Republican wins by 2 points would cancel each other out, for example), and small states with a lone Congressional district would still give a winner-take-all to their preferred candidate. It would not reflect properly the vote in the nation; it would just magnify the issue of gerrymandering.
But that’s not the point of this, because not every state is doing it at once, and there’s no condition whereby it doesn’t kick in until it’s determinative. This move by Pennsylvania would take effect immediately, leading to a distortion where Pennsylvania is the only meaningful state apportioning electors this way. What’s more, to the extent that other states will take this up, it would be states that have voted blue in recent Presidential elections, which now have the GOP running the show:
It doesn’t necessarily end there. 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. Implementing a Pennsylvania-style system in those three places—in Ohio, for example, Democrats anticipate controlling just 4 or 5 of the state’s 16 congressional districts—could offset Obama wins in states where he has expanded the electoral map, like Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado, or New Mexico. “If all these rust belt folks get together and make this happen that could be really dramatic,” says Carolyn Fiddler, a spokeswoman for the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, which coordinates state political races for the Dems.
Democrats would not be able to retaliate. The only states that John McCain won where Dems control both houses of the state legislature are Arkansas, Mississippi, and West Virginia. West Virginia is too small for splitting the electoral votes to have much effect, and Mississippi has a Republican governor. That leaves Arkansas, another small state—and one where McCain won every district handily in 2008.
Obviously, Ohio and Wisconsin have the kinds of Republicans who would be attracted to a partisan move like this.
Republicans actually tried this in California in 2008. They were set to put together a ballot measure that would have apportioned electoral votes by Congressional district. An aggressive campaign to shine a spotlight on the tactic eventually led to the money for the initiative drying up. Pennsylvania is a different situation, because the legislature could take this up, and it wouldn’t go through the voters. The only option for Pennsylvanians is for Democrats to raise hell about distorting the already-distorted Electoral College process to make it impossible for Democrats to ever take the Presidency again.
2 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
I don’t agree at all in your opening sentence about NPV, saying “this proposal is somewhat similar, though not entirely, to the National Popular Vote,” but you did go on to describe National Popular Vote accurately.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states would get the 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. That majority of electoral votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states wins the presidency.
Dividing Pennsylvania’s electoral votes by congressional district would magnify the worst features of the Electoral College system and not reflect the diversity of Pennsylvania.
The district approach would provide less incentive for presidential candidates to campaign in all Pennsylvania districts and would not focus the candidates’ attention to issues of concern to the state as a whole. Candidates would have no reason to campaign in districts where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind.
Due to gerrymandering, in 2008, only 4 Pennsylvania congressional districts were competitive.
If the district approach were used nationally, it would be less fair and less accurately reflect the will of the people than the current system. In 2004, Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote, but 59% of the districts. Although Bush lost the national popular vote in 2000, he won 55% of the country’s congressional districts.
Because there are generally more close votes on district levels than states as whole, district elections increase the opportunity for error. The larger the voting base, the less opportunity there is for an especially close vote.
Also, a second-place candidate could still win the White House without winning the national popular vote.
A national popular vote is the way to make every person’s vote equal and guarantee that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states becomes President.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support is strong among Republican voters, Democratic voters, and independent voters, as well as every demographic group surveyed in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in closely divided battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and border states: AR – 80%,, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should get elected.
The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in AR, CT, DE, DC, ME, MI, NV, NM, NY, NC, and OR, and both houses in CA, CO, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, RI, VT, and WA. The bill has been enacted by DC (3), HI (4), IL (19), NJ (14), MD (11), MA (10), CA (55), VT (3), and WA (13). These 9 jurisdictions possess 132 electoral votes — 49% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
It’s worth noting that Republican legislators are quite confused about the merits of the congressional district method. In Nebraska, Republican legislators are now saying they must change from the congressional district method to go back to state winner-take-all, while in Pennsylvania, Republican legislators are just as strongly arguing that they must change from the winner-take-all method to the congressional district method.