by Nathaniel Smith, in Politics: A View from West Chester, 9/20/11
…The gist of the plan is that the state’s electoral votes would be determined at the rate of one per congressional district plus 2 for winning the state. This, like the Electoral College and the legislative selection of Senators, would put one more layer between the people and the results of voting.
Interestingly, it turns out that no other state is considering this move. Makes you wonder, doesn’t it?
The chief sponsor is state senator Dominic Pileggi (R-9), Senate Majority Leader, who represents a swath of southern Chester and Delaware Counties; see his site for some details on his plan, not yet submitted as a bill.
On Sen. Pileggi’s Facebook page, in reply to the claim that this plan would “more fairly allocate Pennsylvania’s electoral college votes in presidential elections,” reader Bill Steig posted this acerbic comment (which, to the Senator’s credit, remains for all to see):
“Hey senator, guess what: the 2000 presidential election didn’t ‘accutely reflect the popular vote’ of the nation, to use your words in today’s Inquirer. So I guess you agree President Gore would have been better for the nation. Glad you came to your senses—11 years late. What a shameless, cynical political power play.”
True: if the Republicans are so concerned about fairness, why don’t they propose to abolish “winner take all” in all states, not just in a relatively populated swing state where Democrats have won the last five presidential contests?
Furthermore, the timing is certainly suspect; it’s not as if the bill’s sponsor hasn’t ever had a chance to do something for his vision of electoral “fairness” ….
read the full post in Politics: A View from West Chester