Democrats and Republicans Clash Over Proposed Changes to PA Electoral Plan
Email
Republican lawmakers in Pennsylvania could drastically alter the political map ahead of next year’s presidential election, awarding their electoral votes by congressional district instead of as a state.
The legislation proposed by state Senate leader Dominic Pileggi is supported by Republican governor Tom Corbett (pictured above) and would be more likely to hurt President Obama’s chances of reelection than a Republican candidate’s. But it is angering politicians on both sides of the aisle in Pennsylvania and nationally.
The state is always a battleground, despite the fact that a Republican hasn’t won the presidential election there since 1988.
The proposal would switch the awarding of electoral votes from the current winner-takes-all system to a system that would award the electoral college votes to the winner of each congressional district. The only other states that have this process are Maine and Nebraska, but with Pennsylvania’s 20 electoral votes, this could have a significant impact on the 2012 election.
State Sen. Daylin Leach is leading the charge from the state Democratic side to kill the legislation. He calls the legislation an “obscene partisan power grab.”
“We’ve always respected the vision of the founders, the electoral process for 224 years,” Leach told ABC News. “Suddenly, we have a different type of Republican in office now willing to essentially and in my view desecrate that history and make Pennsylvania an irrelevant state in the presidential election, which would cost us money, cost us prestige, and cost us influence with one purpose: to rig the election so their guy wins.”
Leach accused Corbett and the Republicans backing the legislation of wanting to “fix the election like they do in third-world countries.”
And it’s far from just Democrats who are upset about the legislation. The chairman of the state GOP is against it, and so are national Republicans. They believe the change in systems will mean that Democrats will move money and resources from districts they don’t need to worry about, like Philadelphia, to suburban districts that could be more in play.
“This proposal will have a minimal effect on the presidential race at the expense of negatively altering the political landscape for Republicans in Pennsylvania’s House races,” National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Pete Sessions said in a statement.
The governor’s office is standing firm, though, with spokesman Kevin Harley saying Democratic claims that the legislation is a partisan political move are “blatantly false.”
“The governor simply believes from a policy point of view this is the fairest way to distribute Pennsylvania’s electoral college vote,” Harley said.
Corbett also rejects claims from both Republicans and Democrats that the new system will make the once hard fought battleground state irrelevant. Harley said the governor believes it will make the state “even more competitive.”
State Democratic Chairman Jim Burn calls the plan “radical…. Mr. Corbett and his followers are shooting themselves in the foot. If they want us to move our resources up into the congressional districts, we will take our operations, our resources and our GOTV efforts in congressional districts and we will beat them there.”
State Democrats are examining whether there is legal recourse to stop the legislation.
Republican Senate Majority Leader Pileggi told ABC News that the legislation “more closely conforms the electoral college vote to the vote expressed by the people of Pennsylvania for president.”
On the Democratic side of the aisle, Leach said he’s even going to appeal to members of the Republican tea party that this legislation is not what the nation’s founding fathers had in mind.
Leach also believes this legislation could move to other states—although there hasn’t been any discussion yet—like Florida, Michigan and Wisconsin. He thinks it will be a “national effort in states where Republicans temporarily control government, but Democrats have won presidential elections.”
The issue has been the focus of state politics for days and it’s starting to get nasty. On his new monthly radio show, Corbett defended the legislation, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer.
“It will allow the people across the state to be better represented when it comes to the vote for president,” Corbett said.
There are five or six political regions, said Corbett, that have “not been represented because of the huge turnout in Philadelphia.”
Leach sees Corbett’s last comment as a “dog whistle” to his supporters on the issue of race, charging that his supporters will understand that the governor is referring to the large minority voter turnout in Philadelphia.
The governor’s office called that claim “outrageous.”
“Sen. Leach says outrageous and irresponsible things every day and that’s just another example of it,” Harley said.
Best Commencement Speeches of 2012 
Joe Biden Recalls Death of Wife, Daughter
How is this a bad thing? It forces the candidate to appeal to all Americans, to all of us Pennsylvanians and not just Philadelphia. I’m so sick of these political establishment charlatans, you can all go you know where.
Posted by: Mark in Harrisburg | September 19, 2011, 6:25 am 6:25 am
If anything, this is a good idea. It is a better representation of electorate, helps to stop disenfranchising residents, and cuts down on fraudulent voting practices. It is a win, win for everyone except those who thrive on corruption.
Posted by: TK | September 19, 2011, 7:48 am 7:48 am
“And it’s far from just Democrats who are upset about the legislation. The chairman of the state GOP is against it, and so are national Republicans. They believe the change in systems will mean that Democrats will move money and resources from districts they don’t need to worry about, like Philadelphia, to suburban districts that could be more in play.”
LOL! By all means, PA, go ahead and do it. The implosion of the Republican Party continues………………..
Posted by: Searambler | September 19, 2011, 10:45 am 10:45 am
Why not just eliminate the Electoral College completely and go to a ‘one person one vote’ system, with the winner being the person who gets the most actual votes? I think the Electoral College has outlived its usefulness.
Posted by: Searambler | September 19, 2011, 10:52 am 10:52 am
Let the decide on their own how they choose to represent themselves. I’m fine with the current electoral method in Texas.
Posted by: TexBork | September 19, 2011, 10:54 am 10:54 am
Well, CLEARLY they are doing this because they believe they will get more electoral votes for a Republican contender this way. If it works, then there would be nothing stopping every other state – including the BLUE ones – from doing the same thing…………………..
Posted by: Searambler | September 19, 2011, 1:57 pm 1:57 pm
.Let’s get rid of the electoral college period.
Posted by: attitude | September 19, 2011, 2:27 pm 2:27 pm
During the last presidential election, Barack Obama campaigned in Nebraska because of this system.
Since the Second Congressional District (Douglas and Sarpy Counties) also borders Iowa (which is more liberal), Obama was able to cover two states at the same time via news outlets. The Democrats funneled more campaign resources into this media market than in previous elections, which helped the local economy. (Before Obama, the late Nebraska primary was usually ignored. The last time it was contested with campaigning was in 1968, after LBJ announced his decision not to seek an additional term.)
Keep in mind that while the Second CD is an urban district, it is still primarily a Republican stronghold. Obama’s victory there was historic, with or without the electoral vote he won. Of course, the state unicameral wants to change the system back, even though the other four electoral votes of Nebraska are burgundy. (Statewide: McCain=453K, Obama=333K, 15%pt win) The last Democrat who carried Nebraska? LBJ in 1964. Before that, FDR in 1936.
As an electoral wonk, I favor this system. It puts more areas into play, makes for stronger elections, and adds excitement. If this system was applied nationwide, how would it have affected results for past elections?
Posted by: Torsten Adair | September 19, 2011, 4:24 pm 4:24 pm
attitude, Do you think every state should be forced to do so, even if it’s against the will of the people of that state?
Posted by: TexBork | September 19, 2011, 6:57 pm 6:57 pm
I agree with some of the posters – get rid of the Electoral College altogether. Now, would Republicans be in favor of *this*? How about the Dems? Doesn’t matter. Get rid of it, the person with the most votes wins, barring the corruption that occurred that gave the election to GWB.
Posted by: Dissatisfied | September 20, 2011, 2:35 am 2:35 am
Texbork —– Personally, I think every state should do the same thing regarding the election of the President. Either everyone does the ‘all or nothing’ (like the vast majority do now), or everyone does it piecemeal. Or, my own personal preference, just eliminate the electoral college entirely and go to a popular vote. You can bet that ANY Party that attempts to change the rules in their state for how the president gets elected is doing so because they feel that the changes will benefit THEIR guy and THEIR Party………..
Posted by: Searambler | September 20, 2011, 9:03 am 9:03 am
attitude, Do you think every state should be forced to do so, even if it’s against the will of the people of that state?
Posted by: TexBork | September 19, 2011, 6:57 pm 6:57 pm
*********************************************************************************************************************
I think if you have one state moving to “by district”, and another moving from “by district” to “state”, and both are the same party, it amounts to cheating. I do not care the party. This should not be allowed to take place.
Posted by: ATTITUDE | September 20, 2011, 9:42 am 9:42 am
So… instead of fifty states with their 538 electoral votes, you have ONE state (the entire country). I prefer 438 states. Otherwise, candidates are not forced to appeal to the moderate voters.
A Democrat candidate could ignore the red states even more than they do now, concentrating on metropolitan areas with large concentrated voter populations!
If the District plan had been in effect nationwide in 2008, McCain would have gained 64 additional electoral votes, but still lost the election.
Pennsylvania (which is causing this ruckus) would have given 11 EVs to Obama (9 + 2 state) and 10 to McCain.
Florida, won by Obama, would have split 12/15 in McCain’s favor.
Ohio, would have split evenly, with McCain winning 10 of 18 districts.
Indiana, won by Obama, would have split 5:6 for McCain.
Eleven states would have had one electoral vote peeled off to the other candidate.
Posted by: Torsten Adair | September 20, 2011, 10:21 am 10:21 am
The state can choose to elect people however it sees fit as long as it isn’t against the US Constitution.
Posted by: snewsom2997 | September 20, 2011, 11:56 am 11:56 am
Personally, I’d be thrilled to see the electoral college done away with. We SHOULD go wiith whatever candidate gets the MOST votes across the nation and he/she would be our President!!! Boy, if we had THAT in 2000 – think how history could have changed for the BETTER! NO GW! But, I’m not at all happy with the Republicans trying to make ALL the advantages go their way. Does anyone know that those creeps are doing the exact opposite in a different state where THAT would benefit them most??? The Republicans are sleezes in the lowest order and I’d be happy to see their Party disappear and a much better one come about in their place just not the OTHER Republican Party, the Tea Baggers who are just Republicans on STEROIDS! YUCK!
Posted by: demnme | September 20, 2011, 12:26 pm 12:26 pm
Posted by: demnme—Get that petition going to change the Constitution, or overthrow the Government, that is the only way to change the electoral college.
Posted by: snewsom2997 | September 20, 2011, 12:35 pm 12:35 pm
snewsom2997: Posted by: demnme—Get that petition going to change the Constitution, or overthrow the Government, that is the only way to change the electoral college. ========== But I gather you feels it’s OK for the Cons to screw around with the EC in order to benefit themselves. Is that what you’re saying??? Actually, I’m NOT for changing the US Constitution but when the Cons want to fool with PARTS they don’t like they just pee on it from a different direction. But hey, it’s OK – THEY’RE Republicans!!!! In a few years, they’ll want to change it back for the same reasons – much like the filibuster rules, a President running for a third/fourth term and so on. In the 40s they were upset because FDR won 4 terms so they made it TWO Terms ONLY (I find that just fine) but when Reagan was President, they bantered around with the rules once again because they LOVED his butt so much they figured he could win a third term. Well, luckly they left things alone AS THEY SHOULD HAVE!
Posted by: demnme | September 20, 2011, 1:24 pm 1:24 pm
Posted by: demnme—It has been longstanding practice for both sides to screw with districts and the way elections are run, why would now be any different, no I don’t believe it is ok. But the fact is the Parties control elections, they control who gets on the ballot, what districts get the money, what districts are competitive, and what districts are safe. Unfortunately it will require a change to the constitution, something that requires a majority so large as to be impossible to get unless we have a one party system, and stop being federalist, something that would require another Constitutional Change, which is equally unlikely to pass.
Posted by: snewsom2997 | September 20, 2011, 2:40 pm 2:40 pm
Torsten wrote, “If the District plan had been in effect nationwide in 2008, McCain would have gained 64 additional electoral votes, but still lost the election.”
That’s because it was a landslide victory for Obama. Had the election been closer, those 64 electoral votes could have swayed the election the other way. With nothing else changed but the way the electoral votes are apportioned. THAT is using partisan political tactics to benefit one side over the other. Eliminate all of that drama by eliminating the electoral college. Then we would never again have the deplorable result of a candidate winning the popular vote but losing the election…………..
Posted by: Searambler | September 20, 2011, 3:21 pm 3:21 pm
The “winner-takes all”concept is no longer fair and in accordance with a true free democracy. It dismisses the will of entire districts and its voters; it simply erases and throws then oot. Such electoral callousness throws freedonm under the train. How can “we the people” put up with such electoral abuse? the electoral college rejected the republican efforts to keep the winner-gets all” practice, but the republicans kept insisting, I think they filed a suit….the despicable republican radicals :( HOW CAN ANY ONE VOTE FOR THEM?
Posted by: Amanda Wolf | September 20, 2011, 5:39 pm 5:39 pm
THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE IDEA THAT EVERY ELECTORAL DISTRICT LEGALLY DESERVES TO GET ALL THE VOTES IT DID IS FAIR AND JUST.
IN COMPARISON THE WINNER-TAKE ALL VIOLATES FUNDAMENTAL CIVIL RIGHTS.
Posted by: Amanda Wolf | September 20, 2011, 5:44 pm 5:44 pm
IF THE REPUBLICANS’ RADICAL ‘WINNER-TAKE-ALL” PERSEVERES, OUR VOTING LIBERTY IS GONE AND A TINY RICH MINORITY WILL RULE DICTATORIALLY OUR BELOVED AMERICA :(
LET US LEGALLY STOP THE AMBITIOUS ULTRA RADICAL REPUBLICANS.!l THEY ARE WORKING HARD TO STEAL OUR FREEDOM!.
Posted by: Amanda Wolf | September 20, 2011, 5:50 pm 5:50 pm
ELECTORAL RULES WERE ORIGINALLY A MESS, WHEN THE FOUNDING FATHERS DROVE OUT BRITAIN FROM AMERICA. THE ISSUE NEED BE RESEARCHED. YET, WASHINGTON AND MANY OTHER FOUNDERS WERE REPUBLICAN. LIBERALS LIKE JEFFERSON WERE IN THE MINORITY. THE HISTORICAL GAP BETWEEN THE AMERICAN WAR OF INDEPENDENCE AND THE CIVIL WAR PRESIDENT LINCOLN LEAD WAS BIG. IN FACT, EACH STATE DETERMINED HOW IT DISTRIBUTED ELECTORAL VOTES.
GIVEN THE WAY PARTISAN POLITICS ARE, UNFORTUNATELY THE WINNER-TAKES-ALL RULE WAS IMPOSED. I DO NOT KNOW WHICH , OR IF BOTH PARTIES DID IT.
APART FROM PARTISANSHIP, WHAT SHOULD BE FIRST IS THE BENEFIT OF AMERICA, ITS ECONOMY AND WELL-BEING OF ITS PEOPLE, NOT ONLY THE PROSPERITY OF THE RICH.
THE WINER TAKES ALL IS AN OUTDATED ALBATROSS AROUND OUR NECKS. TIME TO GET RID OF IT.
Posted by: Amanda Wolf | September 20, 2011, 6:11 pm 6:11 pm
Hi there,I like to looking through your rapport, I wanted to put in writing a tiny little remark to guide you and also like which you high quality extension. Many the most effective for all your current posting reunion.
Posted by: all mountain twin tip ski reviews | September 30, 2011, 6:52 am 6:52 am