Pennsylvania state Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi (R) wants to rig the Electoral College to put a Republican in the White House, and he convinced half of the GOP’s 26 member state senate caucus to co-sponsor a bill that attempts to do so. Under Pileggi’s election-rigging plan, the blue state of Pennsylvania would give many of its electoral votes to the Republican Party’s presidential candidate — Mitt Romney would have won 8 of the state’s 20 electors under this plan — while red states will continue to allocate all of their electoral votes to the Republican candidate as well.

At least one of Pileggi’s fellow Republicans, however, does not support this plan to rig future elections. In video of a recent town hall meeting first posted by People for the American Way, state Sen. Chuck McIlhinney (R-PA) comes out against the bill:

QUESTION: I just had a question about a bill that Senator Pileggi had, that we have been hearing a lot in the press about, that changes the Electoral College votes. What is your stance on that? What is your position on that and why?

MCILHINNEY: The Electoral College — what they are trying to say is that you have a proportionate amount of votes you need, or we have 20 electoral college votes and they should be based upon a proportionate of the number of people who voted in Pennsylvania. Now, under that system, I could never see a Presidential candidate ever getting more than 11 to 9, no matter who it is. Because I am never going to see a candidate win 75% of the vote in Pennsylvania. So you could never even get more than 11 let alone 20. Which makes no sense to me whatsoever. . . . It will force us into a state that will only have two electoral college votes depending on which way you go with it. So, I won’t support it. I don’t think it’s gonna come up.

But that’s the logic is to say that every vote should count. So, even if your candidate lost, you’re still gaining him some Electoral College votes in that Electoral College. But it really was poorly thought out, if I can say that. I respect Senator Pileggi a lot but I wouldn’t support it.

McIlhinney’s statement is good news for American democracy, but it is not enough in and of itself to stop Pennsylvania Republicans from moving forward with their election-rigging plan. Currently, Republicans control 27 of 50 seats in the state senate plus the lieutenant governorship, so a total of three Republicans must oppose rigging the Electoral College in order to kill Pileggi’s plan.

Three times in American history, the loser of the national popular vote became President of the United States — most recently when George W. Bush entered the White House with an assist from his fellow conservatives on the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, even in elections where the American people ultimately see their choice become president, candidates focus their efforts on just a handful of key swing states — Ohio, Florida, Colorado, etc. — while largely ignoring most of the country. If a plan passed by the Oregon House yesterday becomes sufficiently widespread, however, these practices will end and future presidents will be determined solely according to the will of the voters:

The legislation would require Oregon to cast its seven Electoral College ballots for the candidate who wins the national vote, rather than the one who gets the most votes in Oregon.

It would take effect only if a compact is enacted in states with a majority in the electoral college.

Nine states with 132 electoral votes have enacted it, about half of the 270 needed to win the presidency.

In addition to preventing incidents like the 2000 election, where the loser of the popular vote becomes the winner of the only vote that matters, this National Popular Vote plan would also prevent Republicans from enacting two plans they’ve proposed to rig the Electoral College.

The first such plan, which Republican National Committee Chair Reince Priebus proposed enacting in “a lot of states that have been consistently blue that are fully controlled red” would rig presidential elections by allocating most electoral votes in several blue states by congressional district, while still awarding 100 percent of red state electors to Republicans. Moreover, because these states are highly gerrymandered to benefit Republicans, it would lead the the absurd result where the Republican candidate would win the majority of the electoral votes in many states even if they lost the popular vote:

The second GOP election rigging plan is currently pending in the Pennsylvania state senate. Under this plan, the blue state of Pennsylvania would allocate its electoral votes proportionally to the popular vote in that state, while red states would once again award 100 percent of their votes to the Republican:

Attorney General Eric Holder has a solid record on voting rights, and he’s criticized Republican state lawmaker’s efforts to restrict the franchise in the past — at one point comparing voter ID laws to an unconstitutional poll tax. At a speech in New York yesterday, Holder added a new line to his previous attacks on voter suppression, suggesting that DOJ will respond with legal action if any Republican state lawmakers move forward with their proposals to rig the Electoral College:

Long lines are unnecessary. Shortened voting periods are unwise and inconsistent with the historic ideal of expanded participation in the process. Recent proposed changes in how electoral votes are apportioned in specific states are blatantly partisan, unfair, divisive, and not worthy of our nation. Let me be clear again: we will not sit by and allow the slow unraveling of an electoral system that so many sacrificed so much to construct.

There are two versions of the GOP’s election rigging plans, both of which Republicans want to enact exclusively in blue states. One version would allocate electoral votes in several targeted blue states by Congressional district, rather than to the winner of the state as a whole. The other version, which is currently being pushed by Pennsylvania Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi (R), would allocate electoral votes proportionally — so that Mitt Romney would have won a significant chunk of Pennsylvania’s electoral voters even though President Obama carried the state. As with the congressional districts plan, Pileggi’s election-rigging plan would give away electoral votes to Republicans in his blue state, while still keeping all red state electors in GOP hands:

Holder’s suggestion that he would bring the full weight of the Department of Justice down upon any state that tried to steal the White House is certainly welcome, although it alone will not be enough to stop these election-rigging plans. Ultimately, the Justice Department’s ability to protect voting rights depends on a Supreme Court that is not openly hostile to the franchise — and the Roberts Court’s contempt for voting rights pervades their decisions. If the GOP election-rigging plans are to be defeated, it will require citizens in states like Pennsylvania raising their voice in outrage at this blatant attempt to steal American democracy.

On Saturday, Republicans at the Michigan GOP’s convention in Lansing voted by an overwhelming 1,370-132 margin to back a plan that would “divvy-up 14 of the state’s 16 electoral votes according to which candidate got the most votes in each congressional district.” This is one of two election-rigging plans favored by Republicans in several key blue states because it would effectively give away much of the state’s electors to the Republican candidate. Because this particular plan lays the presidential election onto Congressional maps that are already gerrymandered to benefit Republicans, it would achieve the absurd result of virtually guaranteeing Republicans will win the majority of the electoral votes in Michigan, even though the Democratic candidate is likely to win the state as a whole:

Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder (R) reiterated to his fellow Republicans gathered in Lansing that he does not believe this is “the appropriate time” to discuss rigging future presidential elections. But this assurance should be cold comfort to supporters of democracy. Snyder similarly once claimed that pushing a so-called “right-to-work” law would not be “appropriate in Michigan during 2012.” He then signed the very same anti-worker legislation he’d called inappropriate for 2012 in December of 2012.

Earlier this year, Republican National Committee Chair urged Republican lawmakers in states “that have been consistently blue that are fully controlled red” — i.e. blue states with Republican legislatures and governors — to enact a plan rigging the Electoral College so that it would be almost impossible for a Democrat to win the White House. Under these plans, a large chunk of blue state electoral votes would be allocated to the Republican candidate even if the Democratic presidential candidate won the state as a whole. Although some state lawmakers in key blue states such as Wisconsin or Michigan endorsed versions of this plan, the election rigging plans were widely derided as exactly what they are — cheating — and soon, even top Republicans like Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) or Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell wanted nothing to do with election rigging. The plans to rig the Electoral College appeared dead.

Except, that is, for Pennsylvania.

Gov. Tom Corbett (R-PA) was one of the earliest supporters of rigging the Electoral College, backing a plan to do so as early as 2011. Republican state Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi was one of the leading supporters of election-rigging the and late this week, he — along with a dozen other co-sponsors — introduced a new plan to rig the Electoral College votes in his blue state of Pennsylvania. Under this legislation, a large chunk of Pennsylvania’s electoral votes would be awarded to the Republican candidate even though Pennsylvania is a solid blue state that has supported the Democratic candidate for president in every election since 1992.

Of course, while the Republican election-rigging plan calls for blue states to give away electoral votes to Republicans, red states like Texas or South Carolina will continue to award 100 percent of their electors to the Republican:

The 13 co-sponsors on Pileggi’s bill amount to exactly half of the 26 votes he needs to pass the bill through the state senate. According to state Rep. Mike Sturla (D-PA), now that Pileggi has introduced his election-rigging plan, Republicans could conceivably ram it through both houses of the state legislature and have it on Corbett’s desk in just four days.

GOP plans to rig the Electoral College to all but ensure that future presidents will be Republicans have been widely panned even by top GOP lawmakers such as Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell and former vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan. Yet Pennsylvania Republicans still plan to move forward with an election-rigging plan that will ensure that a large chunk of Pennsylvania’s electoral votes go to the Republican candidate even though the state voted for the Democratic candidate in every election since 1992.

A spokesperson for Pennsylvania’s Republican Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi tells the Philadelphia Inquirer that hearings will likely begin on Pileggi’s election-rigging plan this spring. According to state Rep. Mike Sturla (D-PA), once Pennsylvania Republicans start the legislative process moving on their election-rigging plan, they can ram it through both houses of the state legislature and have it on GOP Gov. Tom Corbett’s desk in as little as four days.

Under Pileggi’s election-rigging plan, Pennsylvania will allocate most of its electoral votes proportionally — so if the Republican candidate wins 40 percent of the popular vote they will also receive 40 percent of these electors. Meanwhile, red states such as Texas or South Carolina will continue to award 100 percent of their electoral votes to the Republican. Earlier this year, Republican National Committee Chair Reince Priebus encouraged Republican lawmakers in “states that have been consistently blue that are fully controlled red” to pass election-rigging plans, thus ensuring that red votes remain in Republican hands while many blue votes are also shifted to Republicans:

Shortly after the Democratic presidential candidate won the White House last November, Pennsylvania state Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi (R) announced a plan to keep that from happening again in the future. Under Pileggi’s plan, the blue state of Pennsylvania would award electoral votes proportionally according to the popular vote, so that a percentage of it electors will go to the Republican candidate even if a majority of Pennsylvania’s voters prefer the Democrat. Meanwhile, red states would continue to award all of their electors to the Republican.

In response to an inquiry from ThinkProgress, state Sen. Mike Folmer’s (R) office explained that he supports this plan to rig the next presidential race because he believes it to be more consistent with the Founding Fathers’ vision. Seriously:

Senator Folmer believes such changes would be consistent with how electoral votes were originally awarded under our constitutional republic.

When the Electoral College was established by the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the individual states were empowered to determine how their electors would be chosen. The Founding Fathers rejected the idea of a national popular vote because they feared the rights and interests of the minority could be trampled by the majority. This is why the term “democracy” does not appear in either the Declaration of Independence or the United States Constitution.

From the first Presidential election of 1788 – 1789 through the election of 1800, the states’ electoral votes were awarded proportionally. After the bitter election of 1800, states began to move to a winner take all system – even though the citizens of that era considered such a change to be blatantly political. By 1836, all states had moved to a winner take all system.

Folmer is correct that Pileggi’s plan is more like the anti-democratic methods used to pick our first presidents, although he is wrong about many of the details of how early elections were run. In the first presidential election in 1788-89, just six states used some form of a popular vote to select the members of the Electoral College. Three states delegated this power entirely to their legislatures, although only about 30 percent of South Carolina’s lawmakers even bothered to show up to choose the first president. New Jersey’s governor unilaterally selected the electors in his state.

Moreover, this pattern of cutting the people out of the presidential election was common in early American elections. Six states held a popular election in 1792; eight held one in 1796; and just five held a popular vote in 1800. And the “popular” elections from this era cannot even vaguely be described as democratic. Just over 13,000 people voted in the 1792 election that reelected President George Washington — out of a nation of 3.9 million people. Needless to say, the 700,000 persons held in bondage at this point in American history did not cast a ballot.

So Folmer is right that Pileggi’s effort to cut the American people out of the opportunity to choose their own president is more like the system that elected our first presidents than our current system. The real question is why he thinks moving back to the anti-democratic days of the past is a good thing.

Sen. Folmer’s full statement is copied below the fold:
Read more

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), the 2012 GOP vice presidential candidate and author of a 2011 plan to phase out Medicare, was a leader of the Republican Party’s right-wing long before Gov. Mitt Romney tapped him as his running mate. Yet even he opposes a Republican plan to rig future presidential races for Republicans by changing the way electoral votes are counted:

Wisconsin’s U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, the unsuccessful 2012 GOP vice presidential nominee, is the latest Republican to throw cold water on the notion of switching the way Wisconsin apportions its Electoral College votes — a shift that would have benefited his running mate, Mitt Romney. . . . Ryan, R-Janesville, said he would prefer that Wisconsin stay a winner-take-all state.

“I’ve always kind of liked the idea of being targeted as a state,” Ryan told the Wisconsin State Journal editorial board on Tuesday. “I’d hate to be a flyover state. I’d like to be in the hunt for being a targeted state. I think it’s good for us.”

Notably, Ryan’s argument — that allocating all of Wisconsin’s votes to the winner of the state as a whole ensures that presidential candidates pay more attention to the state — is an argument against both versions of the GOP election-rigging plan.

Republicans originally proposed rigging the Electoral College by allocating electoral votes in key blue states one-by-one to the winner of each congressional district, rather than to the winner of the state as a whole. This month, however, Pennsylvania Republicans are expected to introduce a modified election-rigging plan in that state which would allocate electoral votes proportionally according to the popular vote — so that a Republican candidate who receives 40 percent of the vote would also receive a little less than 40 percent of the state’s electoral votes, even if the Democratic candidate wins the state as a whole. Significantly, the Pennsylvania plan would not apply in red states, so those states would continue to award 100 percent of their electors to the Republican.

(HT: Amanda Terkel)

Last month, Republican National Committee Chair Reince Priebus called up “states that have been consistently blue that are fully controlled red” to rig future presidential elections by changing the way electoral votes are allocated. Under Priebus’ proposal, blue states such as Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania would stop awarding electoral votes to the winner of the state as a whole, and instead would award them one-by-one to the winner of each congressional district. Meanwhile, red states would continue to award 100 percent of their electors to the Republican. This plan appears to have lost steam, however, as several top Republicans in key states announced they will not support it.

Even as Republicans in key states such as Michigan, Ohio, Florida and Virginia came out against this election-rigging plan, however, Pennsylvania Republicans have been eerily quite. We now know why. According to the New Castle News a local paper in western Pennsylvania, Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi (R) will introduce legislation this month that will effectively give away a large chuck of Pennsylvania’s electoral votes to the Republican presidential candidate, regardless of who wins the state as a whole.

How This Election-Rigging Plan Works

Unlike the plan Priebus backs, the New Republican Plan would not tie electoral votes to congressional districts. Instead, it would award the overwhelming majority of Pennsylvania’s electoral votes proportionally according to the popular vote, with two additional electoral votes going to the winner of the state as a whole. If the New Republican Plan had been in effect in 2012, Mitt Romney would have received 8 of Pennsylvania’ 20 electoral votes, despite losing the state by a substantial margin.

The problem with the New Republican Plan is that it would only be enacted in blue states such as Pennsylvania — the Democratic candidate for presidential won Pennsylvania in every single election for the past two decades — while red states would continue to award all of their electoral votes to the Republican. Thus, the plan gives away Democratic votes to the Republican for free, while letting the Republican candidate keep all the votes they earn legitimately in other states:

Read more