Skip to main content

I'm not sure Pennsylvania is a swing state

After all, we haven't actually given our electoral votes to a Republican since 1988. And that was to George HW Bush—who, everybody knows, wasn't really a Republican. If we really were a swing state, I'm pretty sure the state GOP wouldn't be pushing this plan

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.

Pileggi and other GOP leaders in the legislature, all of whom are expressing support for the effort, argue the proposed new system will more closely reflect the popular will of voters.

And it would! And that's a good thing! Only problem is this is a transparent ploy by Republicans to take electoral votes away from Democrats and give them to Republicans. I can't imagine that the Republican Party in my home state of Kansas, say, would ever back a similar effort in a state that hasn't voted Dem since 1964. Why take the chance of losing one electoral vote for a Republican president?

So I like the idea—a more democratic, "small d" way of allocating electoral votes. But I don't like that it's just happening in Pennsylvania, in a manner designed to disempower Democrats. So do it. But do it nationally. Doing it or not doing it state-by-state is just political hackery under the guise of federalism.


Anonymous said…
I think it cuts both ways. If surely would help Republicans in deep blue states and Dems (primarily) in the South. One feature of the Electoral College I've always liked, and I think it was intended, is that the winner-take-all process forces candidates to campaign in swing states, especially medium-size ones that they might neglect. My worry is that a system of proportional electoral votes will allow candidates to cherry-pick where they go, potentially ignoring portions of the country. I may be wrong, but that's my impression of how this would work.
deregulator said…
Meant to ID myself on that post. Sorry.
Joel said…
Hi Rick: As a Kansan, I can tell you that candidates already cherrypick where they go, ignoring portions of the country. This just slices and dices it a little finer.

Popular posts from this blog


I've been making some life changes lately — trying to use the time I have, now that I'm back in Kansas, to improve my health and lifestyle. Among the changes: More exercise. 30 minutes a day on the treadmill. Doesn't sound like a lot, but some is more than none, and I know from experience that getting overambitious early leads to failure. So. Thirty minutes a day.

One other thing: Yoga, a couple of times a week. It's nothing huge — a 15-minute flexibility routine downloaded from an iPhone app. But I've noticed that I'm increasingly limber.

Tonight, friends, I noticed a piece of trash on the floor. I bent over at the waist and picked it up, and threw it away.

Then I wept. I literally could not remember the last time I'd tried to pick something off the floor without grunting and bracing myself. I just did it.

Small victories, people. Small victories.

Liberals: We're overthinking this. Hillary didn't lose. This is what it should mean.

Nate Cohn of the New York Times estimates that when every vote is tallied, some 63.4 million Americans will have voted for Clinton and 61.2 million for Trump. That means Clinton will have turned out more supporters than any presidential candidate in history except for Obama in 2008 and 2012. And as David Wasserman of Cook Political Report notes, the total vote count—including third party votes—has already crossed 127 million, and will “easily beat” the 129 million total from 2012. The idea that voters stayed home in 2016 because they hated Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton is a myth. We already know the Electoral College can produce undemocratic results, but what we don't know is why — aside from how it serves entrenched interests — it benefits the American people to have their preference for national executive overturned because of archaic rules designed, in part, to protect the institution of slavery. 

A form of choosing the national leader that — as has happened in …

I'm not cutting off my pro-Trump friends

Here and there on Facebook, I've seen a few of my friends declare they no longer wish the friendship of Trump supporters — and vowing to cut them out of their social media lives entirely.

I'm not going to do that.

To cut ourselves off from people who have made what we think was a grievous error in their vote is to give up on persuading them, to give up on understanding why they voted, to give up on understanding them in any but the most cartoonish stereotypes.

As a matter of idealism, cutting off your pro-Trump friends is to give up on democracy. As a matter of tactics, cutting off your pro-Trump friends is to give up on ever again winning in a democratic process.

And as a long-term issues, confining ourselves to echo chambers is part of our national problem.

Don't get me wrong: I expect a Trumpian presidency is a disaster, particularly for people of color. And in total honesty: My own relationships have been tested by this campaign season. There's probably some damage…