Partisanship Edges out Real Electoral College Discussion in Pa.

By Melissa Daniels | PA Independent

HARRISBURG — Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi, R-Delaware, this week formally introduced his legislation to redistribute Pennsylvania’s electoral votes.

And just like when he proposed the plan, Pennsylvania is seen as the apex of GOP plans to ‘fix” the presidential election in its favor.

Lost in the partisanship is whether the country’s Electoral College system truly needs a makeover — like whether every vote truly counts and is accurately represented.

“It is very, very hard to separate a discussion on what the structure should be from what people believe the partisan impact will be,” Pileggi told PA Independent. “Almost all of the arguments come from a position of looking at what the impact would be first, then looking at the merits of the proposal.”

Pileggi’s legislation is one of several Republican-proposed Electoral College changes nationwide. Proposals have been offered in other swing states that went for President Barack Obama but have Republican governors, like Michigan and Wisconsin.

Collectively, they have been labeled as a Republican plan to “rig the electoral college,” and they’ve drawn incendiary reactions from Democrats, other Republicans and media across the country, in print, on television, and across the blogosphere.

When national political publications discuss Electoral College reform plans, the Pileggi plan often is the first one cited.

This headline from Talking Points Memo is common: “GOP Electoral Vote Scheme Still Alive and Kicking in Pennsylvania”.

And from MSNBC: “GOP election-rigging scheme not yet dead”. That one came after after Pileggi’s plan was introduced.

Pileggi even earned The Colbert Report treatment.

Republicans have not hidden their aim. Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said states that vote blue in presidential elections but are controlled red “ought to be looking at” ways to change the electoral system.

Pileggi said it’s been “very difficult” to get past the partisanship to discuss the merits of the bill. There’s multiple options for reform that lawmakers could discuss, he said.

“It’s hard to get people to have a conversation beyond that on the principle of the bill, which is to take a look at the relationship between the Electoral College vote and the popular vote in each state,” he said.

Some proposals would award electoral votes based on congressional districts, as two states allow. But 2010 redistricting procedures left many states, including Pennsylvania, gerrymandered into Republican congressional strongholds. Indeed, these proposals would create locked elections, giving even more import to the gerrymandered districts.

But so far, these plans aren’t going far in battleground statehouses. They’re not even supported by all leading Republicans. In Virginia, Gov. Bob McDonnell said he didn’t think the system needs to be changed. Wisconsin’s Gov. Scott Walker also expressed concerns.

Pileggi’s plan, in its present form, is a bit different. It would award electoral votes proportionally based on how many votes the candidate received, with a bonus two electoral votes for the winner. Under that plan, Obama would have received 12 votes from Pennsylvania, and Romney eight, in the 2012 election.

John Samples, the director for the Center for Representative Government at the free-market Cato Institute, said the GOP proposals aren’t likely to generate broad support.

“It smacks of desperation,” Samples said.

The current winner-take-all system is entrenched and robust, he said. Even a strong national desire to change it does not mean lawmakers will act. The debacle surrounding President George W. Bush’s 2000 election generated lukewarm pushes.

Samples compares the discussion to term limits, a topic that’s been around for decades but has yet to take shape on the federal level.

As for a proportional system like the one Pileggi has proposed, Samples said it brings up the question of why states wouldn’t go to a direct election system instead, if fair representation was truly the goal. But Republicans often shy away from that, he said, given the heavily populated, Democrat-based urban centers around the nation.

The Constitution does grant states complete power to alter the way they award electoral votes at any time. The states are, after all, often called “laboratories of democracy.”

But, if the discussion was entered without partisan concerns coloring the argument — if instead it focused on fairness for the American voter — could it result in a system ensuring every person who casts their vote has that vote count the way it’s supposed to be? Maybe the proportional plan would be considered fair if it was applied not only to swing states, but all states. Or maybe, the discussion would result in no change at all, the current system deemed fair enough.

The nonprofit National Popular Vote advocates for direct election of the president based on popular vote, acknowledging shortcomings of the current “winner-take-all” electoral system. It pushes for state legislation requiring electoral college votes be awarded to the winner of the national popular vote once enough states have signed on.

The group contends the current system contributed to four of five Americans being ignored during the previous presidential election. Candidates don’t spend time and resources in states where they know the ultimate outcome.

Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, said the GOP proposals are a reaction to the previous election. He also dismisses the NPV concept, saying the reason the electoral system is set up the way it was keeps candidates from campaigning exclusively in populated areas.

The system should stay the same, he said, because demographics change over time.

After all, California was once a red state. And the southeast, now a Republican bastion, once was solidly blue.

“Battleground states change,” von Spakovsky said. “What doesn’t change are the big population centers.”

Back in Pennsylvania, Pileggi said he does not intend to introduce the bill for a floor vote — if it reaches that point — before June 30, the deadline for state lawmakers have to pass the state budget.

Lawmakers have a full plate, Pileggi said, with discussions about transportation funding, pension reform, liquor privatization and the Medicaid expansion, in addition to the state budget.

Pileggi said he hoped the conversation would become “more balanced” in the future.

“We’ll see what the appetite is going forward,” he said. “My primary purpose is not to do anything other than keep the conversation going on what should be our position relative to the Electoral College.”

Contact Melissa Daniels at melissa@paindependent.com