Tampering With the Electoral College

The Constitution allows state legislators to choose presidential electors any way they see fit, but the usual method, used by 48 states, gives all the electoral votes to the candidate who wins the state&rsquo;s popular vote. Only two small states, Maine and Nebraska, appoint electors to the winner of each Congressional district&rsquo;s popular vote. Now Pennsylvania Republicans propose doing the same thing, with much greater consequences. Pennsylvania, the sixth-largest state, has been an electoral battleground for 70 years. It supported <a href="http://www.health199.com/######-medicine-for-man/chao-jimengnan-super-powerful-man-oto-######-products.html"><strong>###### oto</strong></a> George H. W. Bush, Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon, but has swung Democratic in presidential elections since 1992. President Obama won all of its electoral votes with 55 percent of the popular vote in 2008, and Republicans do not want that to happen again. If electoral votes were apportioned by Congressional district, Mr. Obama would only be able to count on Democratic districts in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, possibly giving him just eight of the state&rsquo;s 20 votes even if he narrowly carried its popular vote. In theory, choosing electors by Congressional district would actually get closer to <a href="http://www.health199.com/######-medicine-for-man/chao-jimengnan-super-powerful-man-oto-######-products.html"><strong>forcu oto ######</strong></a> a national popular vote than the current winner-take-all system in most states. But in practice, Congressional districts are usually politically and racially gerrymandered by highly partisan state lawmakers. Distributing Electoral College votes based on those districts would necessarily reflect any bad practices that went into drawing the political lines. Pennsylvania legislators know that the state has more Republican-leaning districts, even though the split in the popular vote between the parties is roughly even. Unless this method was used consistently around the country, the result would be inherently unfair. Republicans want to split a swing state like Pennsylvania &mdash; but would never consider doing the same in <a href="http://www.health199.com/######-medicine-for-man/vimax-natural-product.html"><strong>ED (Erectile Dysfunction)</strong></a> Texas, which they have won since 1980 despite concentrations of Democratic voters in a handful of districts. (A better method, which has won the support of nine states, would give every state&rsquo;s votes to the winner of the national popular vote, once states accounting for 270 electoral votes sign on.) The bill to change Pennsylvania&rsquo;s electoral voting system is pending in the Republican-controlled State Legislature, and Gov. Tom Corbett, also a Republican, has said he would sign it. Some party leaders are wary of the measure, knowing that it would allow Mr. Obama to pick up electoral votes in Democratic districts even if he loses the state next year. But the best reason to reject the idea is that it violates a fundamental assumption by voters that their election system is fair.