There’s a move afoot in Pennsylvania to basically withdraw from the 2012 presidential campaign. Here in Colorado, we understand the impulse.
It’s not easy being a swing state, particularly when the campaign ads take over the airwaves and leave us longing for calmer times when, say, beer ads dominated the airwaves.
But a group of Pennsylvania legislators aren’t worried so much about selling commercial time. They’re trying to swing the 2012 election by ending Pennsylvania’s status as a heavily contested swing state.
Here’s how it would work in principle: They would change the winner- take-all model for electoral votes and distribute the state’s 20 votes by giving one vote to the winner of each of the state’s congressional districts, with two votes reserved for the overall state winner.
Here’s how it would work in fact: In 2008, Barack Obama won Pennsylvania by 10 points, collecting all the state’s then 21 electoral votes. If the rules had been changed then, Obama would have won 11 electoral votes and John McCain 10, rendering Pennsylvania a virtual tie.
Though a contested state, Pennsylvania has gone Democratic every year since 1988. If the election is close in 2012, Obama probably needs Pennsylvania to win. If Pennsylvania, which has a Republican governor and a Republican majority in both state houses, changed the rules, it could give the Republican presidential nominee a major boost.
Or it might not. It might be that Pennsylvania swings Republican in 2012 and the Republican still loses.
There are several reasons not to make this move, chiefly because it would violate the spirit — though not the letter — of modern American election law. According to the Constitution, states can divide the electoral votes any way they choose. And in many states, the state legislators chose electors into the 19th century.
Dave Weigel, writing in Slate, went to the source for edification. He cites Thomas Jefferson, who in a letter to James Monroe said it would be unfair for states to use different systems. Jefferson said it “would give a result very different from what would be the sentiment of the whole people of the United States . . . .”
In Colorado, we’ve been down this path. Back in 2004, Amendment 36 would have changed state law to distribute our electoral votes proportionally. The idea, in a then-solid red state, was to help Democratic nominee John Kerry.
The proposal was crushed. And by 2008, Colorado was voting Democratic, and the rule would have helped Republicans. You have to be careful what you wish for.
Two states — Maine and Nebraska — currently have systems that allow their electoral votes to be divided. In fact, in 2008 Obama won one electoral vote in very Republican Nebraska.
We’re sure it’s only coincidence that Nebraska may now consider changing back to the winner-take-all model.
If Pennsylvania voted to change the rules and the change determined the election’s outcome, there would be well-deserved outrage. And it seems that we have enough political outrage in this country already.
