We might be screwed in the electoral college for quite some time.

[BzaDem]

The Pennsylvania GOP is talking about changing their electoral college vote allocation, so that the winner in each congressional district gets one electoral vote (rather than the winner of the state getting all the electoral votes). This can happen because the Republcians control the entire state legislature and the governor's office.

This would be a complete and total disaster for Dems. We have won PA for the last 5 presidential elections, and the last time we won the WH without winning PA was 50 years ago. This is really unlikely to hurt Republicans, even if they win the popular vote in the state. Why? Because if they are winning the popular vote in the state, then that means the Democrat is probably doing badly enough nationwide that they would have lost under the traditional system anyway. Furthermore, the are really no states I can think of where we could fight back, since we don't control any state that is a Republican electoral college lynchpin.

On the other hand, if Dems win the popular vote, we stand to lose many electoral votes relative to the traditional system. We would have lost 10/21 electoral votes if we had this system in 2004 (the last close election).

But this goes beyond PA. If this happens in PA, I suspect they will at lest consider doing the same thing in Michigan and Wisconsin. Michigan would be an even bigger disaster -- we would have lost 10/17 electoral votes in MI in 2004. In Wisconsin, we would have lost 4/10.

To put this in perspective, losing 24 electoral votes is like losing an additional Ohio and New Mexico, automatically, each and every election.

But it gets worse. Republicans have total control of redistricting in all 3 states. Under this system, gerrymandered districts that favor Republicans will now also net them even more votes in the electoral college. So the losses in future elections will probably exceed 24.

I don't think there is any way we can stop them in PA or MI for 2012, if they actually go through with this. We might be able to win a ballot initiative in MI in 2012 (I know very little about the requirements for that), but that can't affect the 2012 election regardless. In WI, we might be able to win more recalls in 2012 and stop them (if they wait until after the recalls to do it).

All in all, this looks horrific. My hope at this point is that there is a sufficient backlash that Republicans in PA back down and those in MI and WI don't even attempt it. They haven't actually written a bill doing this yet, so maybe this is less likely than I fear. But I fear that resting my hopes on Republicans not using their power to benefit them is a losing proposition.

[markpkessinger]

1. "In" or "By"?

;)

[Logical]

2. Wow, this is scary!

[tblue]

3. That's one reason so many of us have been screaming

for the Dems to differentiate themselves from the Republicans. Draw a bright line. That's not all we need to do, but if this party is not offering a clear contrast to the Teapublican party, then we are s.o.l. and deserve to be.

[ShadowLiberal]

4. Democrats thought of doing this in NC in 2008 but didn't, I'll believe it when I see it

I don't think the blowback the GOP would suffer would justify trying to pull a trick like this. That would set off a chain reaction where democrats would do the same thing in red leaning states, making the GOP suffer to.

These kind of plots aren't popular either, Colorado voted down a similar effort to split their electoral votes based on the percent of votes each candidate got (effectively turning the state into a contest for 1 electoral vote if they had an odd number, or a contest for nothing if they had an even number).

The fact that PA is so heavily gerrymandered would also make such a move even more unpopular with the voters, and cause the PA GOP to suffer even more come election time.

Plus keep in mind, PA's current districts were supposed to be heavily gerrymandered in the GOP's favor, but that didn't stop the democrats from turning a 2 to 1 disadvantage in 2004 into a 2 to 1 advantage in PA house seats by 2008.

[BzaDem]

5. I really hope you are right.

The problem is that right now, we have no Red states we could do this in to balance it out, and the Republicans know this. And even if they do a dummymander and give us a 2-1 victory in some later election, that is still 6-7 electoral votes we lose. In general, we would lose under these systems, since Democrats are usually packed into fewer districts (both because of geography and because of the voting rights act in some states).

I agree these things are usually unpopular, but I don't think any ballot initiative can reverse them in time for 2012. That means Republicans will be deciding between a backlash that might affect some state races, versus possibly winning the Whitehouse and repealing healthcare/financial reform and appointing Justice Kennedy's replacement.

We certainly need a party organized grassroots campaign against this. Maybe they will back down or drop it altogether.

[0rganism]

10. in which "red leaning states" do Dems have the legislature and the gov?

This is a factor in PA and MI (and WI) because Republicans won big there in 2010. I can't think of any analogous states where Democrats would benefit by doing the same thing to any comparable degree.

[Prophet 451]

11. What blowback?

If Dems tried to do this in red-leaning states, the GOP would just go on TV and scream about how unfair it was and the Dems would back down. You're neglecting that the GOP has near-TOTAL control of the media these days.

[LoZoccolo]

6. The lesson here is to vote straight Democratic tickets for all offices. n/t

[unblock]

7. one big practical negative for pennsylvania is that it reduces the value of campaiging in the state

as long as it's close, winner-takes-all makes it an electoral bargain in for the campaigns, which leads to much campaigning in the state. the reverse it true if it's not close -- a strongly republican or strongly democratic state can safely be ignored in a winner-take-all system, but in a district-by-district system, a few of the electoral votes may be up for grabs, so it might be worth campaining in those small areas, at least if the national race is close.

by pennsylvania being pretty close lately, it moving away from winner-takes-all definitely reduces the value of campaigning in the state.

presidential campaigning brings in a lot of money for advertisers, hotels, restaurants, and so on.

so a lot of businesses will actually be opposed to this even if they support a better chance for a republican president.

[AndyTiedye]

8. They Could Simply Scrap the Election in their States and Award the Votes to the Republican

They control enough states so that if they were do do this in all of them, they practically cannot lose, no matter who the candidate is.

[BzaDem]

9. They wouldn't go that far. That would have reverberations nationally. They are picking the rule

change can be spun ("we're just more accurately representing our voters' will, ha ha ha") but would still do significant damage to Dems if enacted.

[mvymvy]

12. Support the National Popular Vote Bill

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.

When the bill is enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes– enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.

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). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. Support is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed iin recent polls in closely divided battleground states: CO-- 68%, 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%, ME -- 77%, NE -- 74%, NH --69%, NV -- 72%, NM -- 76%, RI -- 74%, and VT -- 75%; in Southern and border states: AR --80%, KY -- 80%, MS --77%, MO -- 70%, NC -- 74%, and VA -- 74%; and in other states polled: CA -- 70%, CT -- 74% , MA -- 73%, MN – 75%, NY -- 79%, WA -- 77%, and WV- 81%.

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, HI, IL, CA, NJ, MD, MA, VT, and WA. These 9 jurisdictions possess 132 electoral votes– 49% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

NationalPopularVote.com

[mvymvy]

13. District Method Magnifies Worst Features of EC system

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.

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.

In Maine, where they award electoral votes by congressional district, the closely divided 2nd congressional district received campaign events in 2008 (whereas Maine’s 1st reliably Democratic district was ignored).

In Nebraska, which also uses the district method, the 2008 presidential campaigns did not pay the slightest attention to the people of Nebraska’s reliably Republican 1st and 3rd congressional districts because it was a foregone conclusion that McCain would win the most popular votes in both of those districts. The issues relevant to voters of the 2nd district (the Omaha area) mattered, while the (very different) issues relevant to the remaining (mostly rural) two-thirds of the state were irrelevant.

When votes matter, presidential candidates vigorously solicit those voters. When votes don’t matter, they ignore those areas.

Nationwide, there are only 55 “battleground” districts that are competitive in presidential elections. Seven-eighths of the nation’s congressional districts would be ignored if a district-level winner-take-all system were used nationally.

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.