Political Animal
Blog
Pennsylvania’s Republican governor, Tom Corbett, and GOP leaders in the state legislature have cooked up an ugly election scheme, hoping to help rig the 2012 presidential election. As Keystone State Republicans see it, if they change how Pennsylvania doles out electoral votes — awarding by district, rather than winner-take-all — they can conceivably deny President Obama at least 10 electoral votes next year.
Yesterday, however, as the Pennsylvania plan became more controversial, an unexpected group of opponents emerged: other in-state Republicans.
[T]o several Republicans in marginal [congressional] districts, the plan has a catch: they’re worried that Democrats will move dollars and ground troops from solid blue districts to battlegrounds in pursuit of electoral votes — and in the process, knock off the Republicans currently in the seats.
Suburban Philadelphia Reps. Jim Gerlach, Pat Meehan and Mike Fitzpatrick have the most at stake, since all represent districts Democrats won in the last two presidential elections. They and the rest of the Republicans in the delegation are joining with National Republican Congressional Committee officials to respond and mobilize against the change. […]
State GOP chairman Rob Gleason is also opposed to the plan.
“We would no longer be a battleground state with all the benefits that come with that,” he said. “It would affect us all the way down ticket. We’re gonna win the presidency here anyway, so why we would do this now when we’re at the top of the heap is beyond me.”
At this point, Pennsylvania Republicans, including the governor, don’t seem to care whether congressional Republicans like the idea or not. We’ll see soon enough whether that changes.
In the meantime, with voters giving Republicans the state House, the state Senate, and the governor’s office in Pennsylvania, there’s not much Democrats can do.
As Dave Weigel explained, “Democrats who want to stop this must place their hopes in other Republicans … who oppose this for picayune local political reasons, or are willing to bet it all on Republicans winning the state for the first time since they crushed Dukakis. If Democrats find six Republican to oppose it in the Senate, or 11 in the House, they can stop it. Otherwise, it’s splitsville.”
If the 2012 presidential race is close, as it’s very likely to be, the outcome of this fight may very well have a huge impact on who takes the oath office on Inauguration Day 2013.
Facebook
Twitter
Live Free or Die on September 15, 2011 10:42 AM:
Look at Florida. The Democratic registration is greater than the Republican registration by about 600K. Yet somehow the state GOP own the Florida legislature and the Democrats are powerless. Why is that? That is because the GOP uses whatever power it has to maximize its position and make things advantageous to them, while the Democrats are most interested in fairness and balance. When will the Democrats wake up and play hardball themselves. Every time Dems are in a position to play hardball, they unilaterally give up their advantage and reach their hands out to help their enemy off of the mat. After Bush vs Gore, it should have been obvious to any elected Democrat that this was going to be a permanent war. Bush vs Gore showed that Republicans will use any partisan advantage (even the USSC) to further its agenda
c u n d gulag on September 15, 2011 10:43 AM:
Once ordered, these folks will be make to fall in line.
Republicans, like lemmings, always follow the asshole ahead of them.
OT:
OMG - I must have had an aneurysm!
I can make out CAPTCHA better today.
kindness on September 15, 2011 10:49 AM:
2000 really should have been all we needed to scrap the Electoral College and make Presidential elections a direct citizen vote.
Peter C on September 15, 2011 10:50 AM:
Honorable opponents don't fight dirty. This is fighting dirty (AGAIN!). The Republicans are NOT honorable opponents. We must cast our delusions aside. They have said they their goal is not to beat us but to DESTROY us. It is time we believe them.
Live Free or Die on September 15, 2011 10:53 AM:
I look at California. It is a heavy blue state. The Democrats plan should include eliminating every Republican seat in the state. Washington should shut down most of the polling places in Republican heavy districts so they have to drive 20 miles to vote. If they cannot do that, then they should put all of the older voting machines in Republican districts to make the lines longer. Why dont the democrats fight fire with fire? The media will do he said/she said anyway. Democrats should change rules in the middle of the game like the Republicans do. I want to go on offense, and make the Republicans squeal. As it stand, Republicans have to make up fake scandals because the Democrats are so inept at playing hardball, so they have to talk about paperclips or fake signals to muslims.
sparky on September 15, 2011 11:00 AM:
Amend the constitution. Elect the president by popular vote. Make the candidates fight for every vote in every state. It'll increase voter participation and weaken the power of the big donars. After the 2000 election I thought getting rid of the electorial college would be the first order of business in a democrat controlled congress. The party leaders must like the status quo. How can we citizens force this change??
Live Free or Die on September 15, 2011 11:02 AM:
@ Peter C:
"Honorable opponents don't fight dirty. This is fighting dirty (AGAIN!). The Republicans are NOT honorable opponents. We must cast our delusions aside. They have said they their goal is not to beat us but to DESTROY us. It is time we believe them."
Republicans only understand fear. They do not respect kindness toward one's foes. After the 2008 election, the GOP was on the ropes, disoriented. Fox was really nervous. What did Obama do? Talk about Ronald Reagan and how great he was, talk about how reasonable republicans are, talk about his "friend" Tom Coburn, talk about how "one day he will convince Eric Cantor to agree to his good ideas". He also had dinner with George Will. He also started a war with FOX then backed down and fired the person responsible for that effort. WTF was that all about? Would Republicans ever do these type of things? They want to destroy Democrats.
Henry Plantagenet on September 15, 2011 11:04 AM:
Here's a scenario for you.
The Penna GOP rigs the law so they can try to steal the 2012 election.
The economy, as expected, continues to tank.
Obama, as expected, continues to be a clumsy political fighter, bringing the proverbial knife to the proverbial gunfight.
Election day comes. It's really really close. Obama actually loses the Penna popular vote, which means that under the old rules he'd get none of those electoral votes. But because the GOP tried to screw him with the new rule, he now gets about half of those electoral votes. And for that reason he wins 270-268.
And it would serve those craphounds right.
Snowflake on September 15, 2011 11:08 AM:
Can someone address whether there are viable legal challenges to this? I'm not familiar with any caselaw on apportionment of Electoral College votes.
However, because this scheme could potentially deliver a majority of PA's Electoral College votes to a candidate that did not win the majority of PA's popular vote, is there not an argument that it violates the one person-one vote guarantee? And would a plaintiff have to wait to press this claim until after the potentially unconstitutional result, or could a voter sue PA immediately on enactment?
Grumpy on September 15, 2011 11:11 AM:
"We would no longer be a battleground state with all the benefits that come with that," he said.
Benefits such as saturation TV & radio ads, reams of junk mail, and TV & radio ads. The benefits are so overwhelming, it's hard to understand why a state like Alabama wouldn't agree to split presidential votes 51-49 instead of a solid GOP lock. That way, instead of being a net recipient of federal tax money, Alabama could reap the benefits of battleground states like Florida or Colorado, which give more in federal taxes than they receive.
Jim V. on September 15, 2011 11:16 AM:
Andrew Sullivan's blog yesterday noted that the Democrats tried to do the same thing in Colorado a few years ago. I am as concerns as the next Democrat/Liberal/Progressive on this power grab by the Republicans in PA, but if the Dems have also tried this, don't we come off a tad bit hypocritical?
mikeyes on September 15, 2011 11:27 AM:
I'm not sure why splitting the electoral vote is considered "ugly" since it is permitted by the Constitution and already in place nationally. Maybe just because the Republicans are doing it in a swing state.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution states:
"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."
In the past many states had the legislature choose the Electors instead of letting citizens vote. MN and NE have split electoral votes and the world did not end. The idea of a one person/one vote guarantee does not exist in this instance. Instead it is a characteristic of the Electoral College system of indirect voting for the President and VicePresident.
Live Free or Die on September 15, 2011 11:27 AM:
Why did the Dems try to do this? and isnt the fact the the state is leaning blue make this situation different. A similar thing would be if Texas had a democratic legislature that tried to change the rules to get some Democratic electoral votes out of Texas. Besides, why do you care if a Repub could call us hypocritical? They do not care if they are hypocrites. This a another way of republicans saying "both sides".
June on September 15, 2011 11:28 AM:
We know this is happening, but do the people in PA know or care this is happening? What do Pennsylvanians have to say for themselves? How is this even legal? Isn't this election tampering?
bushworstpresidentever on September 15, 2011 11:55 AM:
Actually, under Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the US Constitution, quoted above by mikeyes, there is nothing that requires that the citizens of any state even get to vote for President or the electors. The Pennsylvania legislature (or any other, for that matter) could simply pass a law that states that the legislature shall meet on November 7, 2012 and decide for itself which candidate shall be awarded Pennsylvania's electoral votes.
June on September 15, 2011 12:02 PM:
@mikeyes - That clause talks about the appointment of Electors, but it still does not seem to address the issue of Republicans selectively doling out the electoral votes. And not for nothing, Minnesota and Nebraska are not exactly battleground states, so no wonder the earth didn't end.
What's "ugly" about this is that it is yet another blatant engagement in voter suppression and election tampering by the GOP that is being yawned over by a sleeping/cowed/complacent/complicit media.
stinger on September 15, 2011 1:01 PM:
c u n d gulag -- Must be your lucky day. My first effort had an easy-to-read "superfi", plus a collection of letters in black with reversed-white letters superimposed in the middle. I could read "is something ia something i". Ridiculous.
Same kind of mid-word reversal on the second try, but at least it's legible.
wab on September 15, 2011 1:07 PM:
Wake up America. The Republicans across the country, with all this electoral fiddling, are de facto staging a coup. A Very Republican Coup (soon to be a major motion picture, starring George Clooney, ironically).
N.Wells on September 15, 2011 1:43 PM:
Didn't this come up for discussion in California not that long ago? If all the states shifted to this system simultaneously, it would be a good thing (although still not as good as basing the outcome on a direct, nationwide, count of individual votes), as the outcome of the presidential election would more closely match the popular vote. However, having only one or two large states transition to apportioning electoral votes according to % of the popular vote is simply adding unfair bias in favor of the losing candidate.
mikeyes on September 15, 2011 2:07 PM:
@June,
"What's "ugly" about this is that it is yet another blatant engagement in voter suppression and election tampering by the GOP that is being yawned over by a sleeping/cowed/complacent/complicit media."
How is this voter supression? Granted the outcome can be manipulated by gerrymandering districts, but these districts have to be determined by population and all of them have to be roughly equal in size. Everyone eligible has a chance to vote in every district.
Besides, voter supression is much more efficiently accomplished by voter IDs, changing the place where you vote and dirty tricks like the Republicans did in WI. Also the Constitution does not mandate popular voting and if the legislature so designated the electoral votes could be chosen by lottery.
This is a perfectly legal, absolutely constitutional way of determining where the various electoral votes go. There is no such thing as one man/one vote in national elections, they are all decided by the Electoral College and those Electors have the ability to choose anyone. Congress then has to certify the election before it becomes official. That is two steps past the election under our system and each of those steps can change the election.
As for battleground states, Are you saying that NE and MN are not important? Are they second class citizens? The Constitution does not make that distinction when it comes to national elections.
BTW, I didn't say I liked it.
nightshift66 on September 15, 2011 3:28 PM:
I agree with Henry Plantagenet above; this could just as easily bite the GOP in the tail as the Dems, if not in 2012 then surely in some future election. And NE also splits its electors in this manner; Obama benefitted thereby in 2008, taking either one or two of NE's electors while losing badly in the state.
There is no legitimate federal legal challenge to be made to this scheme; each state has long been free to choose electors by whatever method they choose. Although no state does so, electors could be divided as a percentage of the statewide popular vote.