Pennsylvania G.O.P. Weighs Electoral Vote Changes for 2012

Anyone think this will happen?

So far, only Maine & Nebraska split their electoral votes.

The instate argument against it is that you will make your state irrelevant in the election, since there's not much potential upside to campaigning there.

If it does happen, I could see Democrats try the same thing in States like Texas and potentially Florida. But, republicans could also push for it in states like Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, etc.

They'd pick up sure votes if they could ever get New York or California to change.

 

The National GOP basically has told Pennsy to not even think about it, since it likely will end up costing the GOP several House seats.

 

How so? It would be a campaign issue in PA and cost seats there, or someplace else?

 

In Pennsylvania, so says the NRCC.

 

They should do it everywhere. The current system is just idiotic.

 

The problem is, with gerrymandering such as it is, candidates would end up spending off of their time not in a few states, but in a few CITIES. The people of Elkhart, Ind., or some city in one of the other few swing House districts, would end up, in effect, deciding the presidency.

Nate Silver has a good takedown of the proposal, including how McCain would have won the most electoral votes in the state even though Obama won Pennsylvania itself by a 10-point margin.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/15/pennsylvania-electoral-college-plan-could-backfire-on-g-o-p/

The most interesting case Silver makes against the proposal is that it could end up undermining the Electoral College entirely. Actually, if you want direct election of the president, states coming up with obviously partisan-driven plans like this would be a great way to do it.

(By the way, Silver notes that Maine and Nebraska already do this, and that Nebraska split one vote for Obama in 2008. His contention, though, is that Pennsylvania would be a bigger deal because it's large enough to swing an election one way or the other.)

 

Splitting states by popular vote inside the state is somewhat reasonable.

Splitting them by gerrymandered political districts is idiotic.

 

The situation as it is right now, though, ensures big cities like Philly and Cleveland decide the election. Pennsylvania, New York and Ohio have huge rural areas, but the cities decide who gets the electoral votes. The current system is a joke, but not sure if what the GOP wants in Pennsylvania is any better.

One thing is sure...splitting the votes favors the GOP in a big way.

 

That's because the cities are where all the people are. You know, the people who vote? The cows don't get a vote.

 

The electoral college is already a joke. This would make it moreso - the states currently doing this shouldn't be able to.

 

Great...more reason to gerrymander House districts.

 

I have to think that eventually both parties will see the probability of the law of unintended consequences coming into play here, such as OBama losing Pennsylvania overall, getting 8-10 electoral votes, and winning the electoral college by three, and deep six this idea. Too many risks for both sides.