Electoral college scam
Electoral College scam
I thought I had seen it all when the Republicans tried to force everyone to use state-issued photo identification to vote in the November election, but this new win-at-all-costs scheme takes real brass.
The GOP is attempting to pass a bill in the Pennsylvania Legislature to change the state's Electoral College voting method. It attempts to strip the votes of the majority and transfer that power to the minority.
Our time-tested method gives our electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in Pennsylvania. The new bill circumvents the majority statewide vote of all Pennsylvanians and provides all but two electoral votes based on congressional districts. This is being done for one reason: There aren't enough votes in rural Pennsylvania to conquer the urban vote, which usually goes Democrat.
Pennsylvania has 20 electoral votes. There are 12 congressional districts held by Republicans; Democrats hold six and the remaining two come from our senators. All these votes go to the presidential candidate who gets the statewide majority vote.
This new Republican “district-by-district” plan would give the Republican presidential candidate a clear advantage with 12 Republican districts. If this plan goes through, the “losing” GOP candidate would get 12 electoral votes, while the Democrat who won the statewide vote would get the rest.
That's all we need — point spreads in the Electoral College. Anybody want to book odds on who will win the next Pennsylvania electoral vote if this new scam passes?
This is such a blatant rip-off. It shamed Republicans in Virginia and other states so badly that they abandoned similar legislation.
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.
- Gun questions for mayor I
- Shame on Wolf
- Wolf is the right choice
- Gun questions for mayor II
- ObamaCare solution
- Wrong on EPA water proposal
- Making it special
- Corbett, not Wolf
- Deepening divide
- Embrace domestic energy production
- U.S. Steel worthy of grant