Saw this Op-Ed about the PA GOP electoral college scheme...

[markpkessinger]

...by one Charles A. Greenawalt II, Ph.D., senior fellow at the Susquehanna Public Policy Institute. At the end of the editorial, there is a note describing that institute as "a non-partisan, non-profit research organization based in Hershey." It may have appeared in multiple publications, but I saw it on the site for the Lock Haven Express ( http://www.lockhaven.com/page/content.detail/id/534217/A-way-to-make-sure-all-votes-matter-in-awarding-Electoral-College-votes.html ). It basically amounts to a sales pitch for the Republicans' proposed scheme of changing the way Pennsylvania's electoral votes are counted. Currently, Pennsylvania uses a winner-take-all system, whereby the winner of the state's popular vote gets the whole delegation's votes. This is the system used by every other state except Maine and Nebraska. Under the proposed change, electoral votes would be awarded on a per Congressional district basis. In 2008, President Obama won 55% of the state's popular vote to John McCain's 44%; however, in terms of Congressional districts, McCain won 10 and Obama won 9 (the districts the President won were more populous than the ones McCain won).

If the GOP plan had been in effect in 2008, rather than getting Pennsylvania's full complement of 21 electoral votes, 10 would have been awarded to McCain and 11 to Obama (9 for the 9 Congressional districts in which he won, and the extra two awarded because he won the overall vote). That would have meant that President Obama, despite having won 55% of the popular vote in a fairly large state, would have enjoyed a net benefit of ONE electoral vote over his opponent. But Greenawalt tries to say that because McCain won 10 districts and Obama 9, that voters of those 10 districts were somehow disenfranchised! It's an outrageous and utterly false claim. He goes on to suggest that the proposed system would be fairer. But as I pointed out in a response that I have submitted (but has not yet been published), it would only be fair to the majority of Pennsylvania voters if the other 47 states who now use the winner-take-all system were to switch as well. But of course, nothing comparable is being proposed in red states.

If that isn't bad enough, later in the piece he discusses the practical difficulty of eliminating the electoral college and going with a direct popular vote. He adds, "...this kind of switch puts a premium on ACORN-style voter fraud and voter buying - something that was shown to be highly evident during the 2008 elections. It's a bald faced LIE, coming from someone who purports to be writing in his capacity as a fellow of a "non-partisan" organization!

Below is an excerpt, but you really should click on the link above and read the whole thing. In a reply to this OP, I will post the response I submitted for publication.

A way to make sure all votes matter in awarding Electoral College votes

September 28, 2011
By CHARLES E. GREENAWALT II, PH.D. - senior fellow of The Susquehanna Valley Center for Public Policy

< . . . >

(I)n the 2008 election, Republican candidate John McCain won the majority of votes in 10 of Pennsylvania's 19 Congressional districts, almost all of them being in Pennsylvania's areas that are more rural. However, Barack Obama was awarded all of the state's 21 Electoral College votes.

Did the votes of those voters in those 10 Congressional districts really count? Could it not be construed that these voters were disenfranchised?

The proposal by state Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi to award Pennsylvania's Electoral College votes based on the winner in each of the state's congressional districts deserves some worthy consideration.

One reason why is the issue of voter enfranchisement. As the above example shows, many people do not have a vote that really counts in the presidential election because of the current winner-take-all system. A switch to the Congressional District Method (CDM) would mean that the votes in all of the state's Congressional districts would really count toward awarding Electoral College votes in the Presidential election.

< . . . >

[markpkessinger]

1. Here is the response I submitted to the editor for publication ...

To the editor:

The column by Dr. Charles E. Greenawalt II, published in this paper on Sept. 28, concerning the proposed changes by the state's GOP leadership to the way Pennsylvania awards delegates in the electoral college to presidential candidates, grossly mischaracterizes both the current system as disenfranchising Pennsylvania voters, and the proposed change as somehow being more fair.

In trying to sell the GOP's plan, Dr. Greenawalt suggests, quite dishonestly, that because President Obama won nine of Pennsylvania's 19 congressional districts in the last election as opposed to John McCain's ten, that voters in the ten districts won by McCain were somehow "disenfranchised" in the last election. Not only is his claim patently false, the actual result of the proposed change would be to give the collective will of Pennsylvania voters less influence in the outcome of presidential elections relative to voters of other states.

Dr. Greenwalt fails to mention that while President Obama won only nine out of 19 districts in Pennsylvania, he won 55% of the popular vote. Since Pennsylvania, like 47 other states, uses a "winner-take-all" system of awarding electoral votes, the winner of the state's popular vote is awarded all 23 of Pennsylvania's electoral votes.

The determination of how many delegates to the electoral college each state has is made by a weighted system, whereby states with larger populations are awarded more delegates than those with smaller populations. Thus, Pennsylvania, with its 12 million plus residents, had 21 electoral delegates in the 2008 election, whereas a state like Vermont, with its population of 635,000, has only three.

Currently, there are only two states which allocate electoral votes by winners of Congressional districts: Maine, with 4 electoral delegates, and Nebraska, with 5. All the rest, including Pennsylvania, use a "winner-take-all" method of allocation. Under this winner-take-all system, the collective influence voters of a given state have on the outcome of the presidential race is proportionate to the size of that state's population. Thus, California, as the most populous state, has the largest influence with 55 electoral votes. Likewise, a state like Texas also has a very large influence with 34 electoral votes.

Had the proposed system been in place in 2008, McCain would have received 10 of Pennsylvania's electoral votes, and President Obama would have received eleven (9 for each of the districts in which he won the popular vote, plus an additional 2 for having won the state's overall popular vote), resulting a net win for President Obama of one electoral vote. What this means, in effect, is that collective will of Pennsylvania's 6 million voters would have had only one-third as much weight in the outcome of the election as that of Vermont's 325,000 voters. In the 2008 election, under the current system, the will of the majority of Pennsylvania voters represented a share in the electoral college of approximately 4%. Under the proposed GOP change, with the winner of the popular vote gaining only a one-vote advantage in the electoral college, Pennsylvania's share in the electoral vote would have been reduced to slightly less than two-tenths of one percent. Tell us again, Dr. Greenawalt, who is really being disenfranchised here?

The only scenario under which the proposed GOP plan would be remotely fair to the majority of Pennsylvania voters is if substantially all the other 47 states that currently use the winner-take-all system were to likewise change their method of allocating electoral delegates to the same kind of system the GOP is proposing for Pennsylvania. Otherwise, if only Pennsylvania makes the change, it will result in Pennsylvania voters having only a third of the influence on the outcome of the electoral vote than a state like Vermont, even though Pennsylvania's population is almost 18 times the size of Vermont's.

So what is really behind this push for changing the system? It is worth nothing here that no such change is being proposed in states like Texas, where the GOP already has an advantage. This change is only being proposed in so-called swing states such as Ohio and Pennsylvania. The goal here is pretty obvious: it is an attempt to give the GOP an unfair advantage in those states where the vote is closely divided between Republicans and Democrats, while retaining their existing advantage in states like Texas. It comes down to a system where, in closely divided states like Pennsylvania, a minority of voters would be given an unfair weight, whereas in states that have solid Republican majorities, the minority party would be given no such advantage.

Dr. Greenawalt is certainly correct that eliminating the electoral college would be a difficult and cumbersome prospect, requiring a Constitutional amendment. But so long as it remains in existence, the only remotely fair way to allocate electoral votes is to do it the way substantially all of the other states do it.

The change proposed for Pennsylvania is an attempt by the GOP to disenfranchise the majority of Pennsylvania voters, who tend to vote Democratic in presidential elections, while leaving intact the weighted system in states where Republicans have the majority. It is nothing more than an attempt to game the system for partisan advantage, at the expense of Pennsylvania voters.

Mark P. Kessinger
New York, New York

[Indydem]

2. I still can't understand why people are upset about this.

This is one step closer to a popular vote for the presidency.

If they were doing this in Texas, where President Obama would have gotten a chunk of THOSE electoral votes, would anyone here be saying anything but "YEAH!!!!!!!111"?

BTW: this would have divided the 2008 vote along the same lines at the popular vote +/- 2.5%

[markpkessinger]

3. The problem is it's only being proposed in swing states ...

... as I said in my response, there is NO plan to do this in Texas or any other solidly red state.

[treestar]

4. It won't be proposed there

It's only fair if all or no states do it.