Radio Smart Talk for Tuesday, October 4:
State Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi (R-Delaware) set the political world on its ear when he proposed changing how Pennsylvania awards its electoral votes in presidential elections. Currently, the candidate who receives the most popular votes in Pennsylvania gets credit for all 20 of the state's electoral votes. Sen. Pileggi's plan would award the electoral votes based on the winner in each of the state's Congressional Districts.
Critics from both parties say the change would weaken Pennsylvania's position as a swing state and have other effects as well. Pileggi counters his proposal would actually make individual votes more impactful and reflect the diversity of the state's voters and regions.
The Senate State Government Committee holds a hearing on the Pileggi proposal Tuesday morning.
Two well-know former office holders are in town to bring attention to another proposal to change how electoral votes are awarded. Former Republican U.S. Senator, presidential candidate and actor Fred Thompson and former Illinois Governor Jim Edgar are part of the campaign -- National Popular Vote Compact --which goes into effect when the Electoral College votes of the participating states totals 270, the number required for a simple majority of the Electoral College. The Compact calls for the Electoral College votes of participating states to be awarded to the national popular vote winner of the Presidential Election in 2016.
Sen. Fred Thompson and Gov. Jim Edgar will appear on Tuesday's Radio Smart Talk.
Listen to the program:
comments
A survey of 800 Pennsylvania voters conducted on December 16-17, 2008 showed 78% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
Support was 87% among Democrats, 68% among Republicans, and 76% among independents.
By age, support was 77% among 18-29 year olds, 73% among 30-45 year olds, 81% among 46-65 year olds, and 78% for those older than 65.
By gender, support was 85% among women and 71% among men.
NationalPopular Vote
Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states would get the 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. That majority of electoral votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states wins the presidency.
National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in each state and district (in ME and NE). Now their votes are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. Now they don’t matter to their candidate.
With National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in AR, CT, DE, DC, ME, MI, NV, NM, NY, NC, and OR, and both houses in CA, CO, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, RI, VT, and WA. The bill has been enacted by DC (3), HI (4), IL (19), NJ (14), MD (11), MA (10), CA (55), VT (3), and WA (13). These 9 jurisdictions possess 132 electoral votes -- 49% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
It's a lie, essentially.
The National Popular Vote bill is a nice way to circumvent the hackneyed electoral college, a vestigial practice held onto by sentimentality and tradition.
The popular vote --with modern vote counting-- is sufficient.
What I would like to see is an end to the monarchy in America.
I would like to see the President become a head of State, an official greeter for other heads of States----but not the absolute KING that the President has become.
Wa-a-a-a-a-ay too much power invested in one person.
And HOW about a special election in which every other male in Congress is eliminated and replaced by a female so that we have gender parity...?
It is long overdue.
Pileggi's plan approaches treason.
Given that there is a recount only once in about 160 statewide elections, and given there is a presidential election once every four years, one would expect a recount about once in 640 years under the National Popular Vote approach. The actual probability of a close national election would be even less than that because recounts are less likely with larger pools of votes.
The average change in the margin of victory as a result of a statewide recount was a mere 296 votes in a 10-year study of 2,884 elections.
No recount would have been warranted in any of the nation’s 56 previous presidential elections if the outcome had been based on the nationwide count.
Then it occurred to me that a vote by mail plan for all states should mitigate that problem
RSS feed for comments to this post