Elections 2012: Pennsylvania Republicans Electoral College Shakeup Plan Could Hurt Obama


The Huffington Post

In spite of Democrats at all levels, state, county and local getting kicked to the curb in Indiana and Virginia, Obama remains optimistic.

Pennsylvania Republicans are planning an electoral college shakeup to try to oust President Obama in the 2012 election. (bet on it they will)

 

Their plan would end the state’s winner-take-all system for electoral votes, replacing it with a system that awards candidates votes based on the results of each congressional district. The statewide winner would garner an additional two votes.

Pennsylvania is largely considered an important election battleground. In 2008, Obama won the state’s 21 votes with just 54.7% of the vote.

In a close election, winning a large state like Pennsylvania can be make  it or break for a candidate.

John Fortier, an electoral college expert told Reuters, “It would be harder for Democrats to win in a close election if this goes through.”

About these ads

11 responses to “Elections 2012: Pennsylvania Republicans Electoral College Shakeup Plan Could Hurt Obama

  1. Do away with the Electoral College. Nobody goes to school there!?!
    Or do politicians go and learn their tricks from there?!?

  2. No, do not do away with the electoral college. That makes the vote popular and states with smaller populations would have less influence than states with large metropolitan areas. For one thing.

    • They aren’t doing away with the electoral college, this is just typical gerrymandering but this time favoring republicans, thanks for finding the site, I’m J.C. and I run the circus.

  3. Most Pennsylvania and U.S. voters want a national popular vote for president.

    A survey of 800 Pennsylvania voters conducted on December 16-17, 2008 showed 78% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
    Support was 87% among Democrats, 68% among Republicans, and 76% among independents.
    By age, support was 77% among 18-29 year olds, 73% among 30-45 year olds, 81% among 46-65 year olds, and 78% for those older than 65.
    By gender, support was 85% among women and 71% among men.

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

    The National Popular Vote bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded by states in the Electoral College, instead of the current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all system (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states). It assures that every vote is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.

    Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. That majority of electoral votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC wins the presidency.

    National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in each state. Now their votes are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. Now they don’t matter to their candidate.

    With National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere would be counted equally for, and directly assist, the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation. The political reality would be that when every vote is equal, the campaign must be run in every part of the country.

    Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state’s electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state, presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are almost invariably non-competitive,in presidential elections. 6 regularly vote Republican (AK, ID, MT, WY, ND, and SD), and 6 regularly vote Democratic (RI, DE, HI, VT, ME, and DC) in presidential elections.

    Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group. Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK– 70%, DC — 76%, DE –75%, ID – 77%, ME — 77%, MT – 72%, NE — 74%, NH –69%, NE — 72%, NM — 76%, RI — 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT — 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%.

    In the lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in 9 state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 3 jurisdictions.

    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). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%,, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

    The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions possessing 132 electoral votes — 49% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

    NationalPopularVote

    • That is why it appears they will be getting one, this has nothing to do with the electoral college. My understanding it moves from a winner take all situation, thanks for your comments, I’m J.C. and I run this circus.

  4. Could not only make it harder for Democrats, but also harder to stuff ballots by such as Acorn. The present situation gives more weight to Democrats in big city areas and leaves areas of less population with less say in government. Elections are, unfortunately, politics at work. We know from past experience that it is the Democrats who have tried to sway elections dishonestly, do we not? Got an alternative?

  5. If you get rid of the electoral college you get rid of our representative republic and go straight to a democracy, which is essentially mob rule. The founding fathers loathed democracy as a form of government,as it ruined (bankrupt) ancient Greece. When the mob find out they can vote themselves money, say bye bye America. Also who ever created the Obama on the donkey picture, the correct spelling is “you’re” in both cases, not your, must have been a democrat!

  6. A League of Women Voters study notes that Americans are twice as likely to get hit by lightning as to have their vote canceled out by a fraudulently cast vote.

  7. The National Popular Vote bill preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College.

    The Republic is not in any danger from National Popular Vote. It has nothing to do with direct democracy.

    With National Popular Vote, citizens would not rule directly but, instead, continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes, to represent us and conduct the business of government in the periods between elections.

    The National Popular Vote bill would end the disproportionate attention and influence of the “mob” in the current handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Florida, while the “mobs” of the vast majority of states are ignored. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided “battleground” states. 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are almost invariably non-competitive, are ignored, in presidential elections. 9 of the original 13 states are considered “fly-over” now. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 “battleground” states.

    The current system does not provide some kind of check on the “mobs.” There have been 22,000 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 10 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector’s own political party. The electors now are dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges

  8. PLEASE MAKE THE CHANGES… the misery index is at an all time high!!! THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE BETTER LEADERSHIP! WE WANT A “GOOD” CHANGE!!!

  9. I don;t think we should change the way our forefathers set up for voting. I am from Pennsylvania, but I don’t think that is a good idea. I would love to find a way though to get my vote (Republican) counted and right now in the Pittsburgh area, it never counts. The Middle of the State is Republican but the around the cities and suburabs, there seem to be more Democrats than Republicans.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s