Recently, Pennsylvania Republicans have been toying with the idea of changing the method for which the state allots its electoral votes in presidential elections. The current ‘winner-take-all’ system gives all of the state’s electoral votes to the winner of the statewide popular vote. Pennsylvania boasts 21 electoral votes, which is a sizeable chunk for one state. In 2008, those 21 votes went to President Barack Obama, who received 55 percent of the state’s popular vote. In fact, Pennsylvania has been colored blue in every presidential election since 1988 under this method.
This is something that Republicans, who so recently gained the upper hand in Pennsylvania, are trying to change. A new bill would award the state’s electoral votes by Congressional district, meaning that both candidates would be able to garner some electoral votes, even if they lose the popular vote. The new tactic, of course, would theoretically reduce President Obama’s electoral vote count in 2012, giving Republicans a new edge.
Most states currently have the winner-take-all system in place, and while this might make votes easier to count, it does not necessarily seem like the most democratic approach to presidential elections. In theory, the minority voice should be counted. If a candidate wins a state by a minute margin, then those minority votes should be taken into account instead of entirely swept aside by a relatively small majority.
However, as solid as the Republicans’ proposal seems on paper, such a change, when adopted for the wrong reasons, should not be implemented. The Pennsylvania GOP just wants the ability to throw more electoral votes to their party and reduce Obama’s electoral vote count in the upcoming election. Changing the system for this reason and this reason alone is unethical and should not be tolerated.
According to The New York Times, if Republicans pass the bill and the changes are in place for next year’s election, Obama could win the popular vote by carrying six Democratic districts but still only gain eight electoral votes, whereas Republicans would end up with 12, due to Republican-controlled redistricting.
The idea in and of itself is not a bad one; it simply should not be discussed right before election year because the state’s Congress would be too easily swayed by potential political gains and lose sight of the integrity of the issue.
This is an account occasionally used by the Daily Free Press editors to post archived posts from previous iterations of the site or otherwise for special circumstance publications. See authorship info on the byline at the top of the page.
