By The Tribune-Review
Published: Wednesday, Feb. 13, 2013, 9:02 p.m.
Low-information voter Billie Mannheimer claimed in the letter “Perversion of democracy” (Jan. 31 and TribLIVE.com) that state House Bill 94 will make Democrat votes worthless, equating one rural Republican voter to “thousands of Democrat votes in an Allegheny County congressional district.”
The bill would allocate presidential Electoral College votes based upon voter preferences within each congressional district, as is done in Nebraska and Maine. Each congressional district in every state represents an equal proportion of the state's population.
Pennsylvania has 18 congressional districts of about 646,000 people each. The most densely populated, the 1st Congressional District (646,355), covers part of Philadelphia. The least densely populated, the 5th Congressional District (646,397), covers all or parts of 17 counties in the north-central part of the state.
Urban voters would compete with other urban voters to select their presidential choice via their district's electoral vote. Rural voters would have no effect whatsoever outside their district. Not by the wildest stretch of the imagination would one rural Republican neutralize thousands of Democrats. And the choice of nearly half of Pennsylvania's voters would be represented, unlike in the current winner-take-all system.
Another benefit is to limit voter fraud to a district where it is practiced, as only that electoral vote and possibly the two statewide electoral votes would be affected.
Stanley J. Penkala
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Obama & Reaganomics I
- Obama & Reaganomics II
- Putin’s actions I
- Obstacles to hiring
- Math in common?
- Putin’s actions II
- Our nation’s testing obsession
- Funding priorities questioned
- Beneficial, irreplaceable