Playing electoral politics is a bad idea for Pennsylvania

By Jesse White, State Representative

With the 2012 election just over a year away, Pennsylvania is poised to step into the national spotlight as a key battleground state. Our 20 votes in the Electoral College, coupled with a wildly diverse combination of urban, rural and suburban voters, make Pennsylvania arguably one of the top five important states in electing the president of the United States.

But if Republicans in Harrisburg have their way, Pennsylvania’s days as a presidential powerhouse could be all but over. The plan, proposed by Republican Senate Leader Dominic Pileggi and backed by Gov. Tom Corbett, would end the “winner-take-all” system for Pennsylvania’s 20 electoral votes. Instead, each congressional district would receive one electoral vote, with two at-large votes remaining for the entire state. Such a scheme would dramatically and fundamentally change the way we vote in presidential elections. Before we dive any deeper into the specifics, let’s be clear about one thing. The Republican Party controls both chambers of the Legislature and the governor’s mansion, so they have the power to basically do whatever they want. Based on their own members’ statements, this is about politics, pure and simple. Pennsylvania has been a “blue state” in presidential elections since 1992, and the Republicans want to make sure they are in the best position possible to make sure that doesn’t happen in 2012.

In fact, some of the most interesting debate seems to be among Republicans, divided over the best way to get the biggest bang for their bucks. Party heavyweights like Republican National Chairman Reince Priebus, Pennsylvania State Party Chairman Rob Gleason and several Republican congressmen have expressed concern about the plan for varying reasons. Some think it’s a bad idea because they believe the GOP will carry the entire state in 2012, so they would be giving up electoral votes in cities like Philadelphia and Pittsburgh that will almost certainly vote Democrat. Others in suburban areas are concerned there will problems for moderate Republicans.

Both points are valid, but they clearly highlight one of the primary reasons why this is a very bad idea. The fundamental question has been defined as whether it is the best way for one party to permanently tilt the system in their favor. This isn’t about the voters, not one bit. It’s a power grab, pure and simple.

Two other states have a similar system (Maine and Nebraska), but they are too small to have any real electoral impact, and Nebraska is considering a return to the old system because the Republican party there wants to make sure the Democrats don’t repeat their 2008 showing, when Barack Obama actually won one electoral vote in an Omaha congressional district. It really is that politically motivated.

Under the current system, your vote still matters even if you live in an area of the state where you may be politically outnumbered. Candidates must campaign everywhere in Pennsylvania and campaigns must spend money in businesses everywhere in Pennsylvania. By switching to a “congressional district” method, Pennsylvania’s economy will suffer, candidates will simply ignore districts they cannot win and voters will be disenfranchised because of where they live in the state.

On a more fundamental level, elections are supposed to be tough-but-fair contests where good candidates with good ideas deserve a fair chance if they work hard to reach the voters. The obscene amounts of money and special interests cultivating the hostile features of our political landscape make the fight less and less fair every single day. As someone who has been in the trenches for a few years now, I know how tough it can be, and this is definitely a giant leap in the wrong direction.

If politics are comparable to a chess match, this election proposal is the equivalent of winning the game by shoving a pawn up your opponent’s nose and then beating him over the head with the board. You don’t change a system we’ve operated under for over 220 years just because you think it might help you beat one guy in one election. This is a power grab, pure and simple, and a bad idea for any voter in Pennsylvania – Democrat, Republican or Independent – who still believes in the power of change via the ballot box.

Rep. Jesse White, D-Cecil, has been a member of the state House of Representatives since 2007.

0 comments

All comments will be reviewed by administrators and posted to their respective articles within 24 hours. Comments deemed inappropriate will not be posted.

Subject:
Body:
Poster:

Enter text seen above: