Pennsylvania and the Swing State of DaTechGuyBlog

by Datechguy | December 9th, 2012

Readability

Pennsylvania and the Swing State of DaTechGuyBlog

Out of a decent respect for the opin­ion of mankind, it is cus­tom­ary to give such excuses as “threat­en­ing weather” or “wet field.” there is noth­ing in the world, though, to pre­vent me from say­ing the field is unfit because I had a nose­bleed behind first base.

Bill Veeck Veeck as in Wreck p 163

Each State shall appoint, in such Man­ner as the Leg­is­la­ture thereof may direct, a Num­ber of Elec­tors, equal to the whole Num­ber of Sen­a­tors and Rep­re­sen­ta­tives to which the State may be enti­tled in the Congress:

Arti­cle 2 Sec­tion 1 US Constitution

A while back Both Smitty & I took umbrage at the Mass State leg­is­la­ture attempt­ing to dis­en­fran­chise me mak­ing a change to the way elec­tors are selected in the state but while I still am upset at the change I pointed out that con­sti­tu­tion­ally the leg­is­la­ture was per­fectly within its rights.

Now how­ever the left is get­ting ner­vous because the GOP has fig­ured out they can play this same game to their advan­tage.

In Sep­tem­ber, top Penn­syl­va­nia Repub­li­cans shocked the nation by propos­ing a change to the state’s elec­tion rules that would have rigged the Elec­toral Col­lege in favor of Mitt Rom­ney. Fac­ing a nation­wide back­lash, the state’s GOP backed down — but not before Wis­con­sin Repub­li­cans con­sid­ered a sim­i­lar plan. With the old rules still in place, Pres­i­dent Barack Obama won a 332 – 206 elec­toral col­lege vic­tory over Romney.

But now that Rom­ney has been defeated, promi­nent GOP­ers are once again mulling rule changes that could make it harder for Democ­rats to win the White House — and eas­ier for Repub­li­cans to claim Elec­toral Col­lege votes in states where they lose the pop­u­lar vote.

Maybe it’s just me but I don’t recall Mother Jones object­ing when Mass­a­chu­setts made the move to even­tu­ally dis­card my elec­toral influence.

At Out­side the belt­way James Joyner com­ments:

Award­ing the entirely of a state’s votes to even a nar­row win­ner makes no sense what­so­ever. And, in the cases of states where one party has a deci­sive advan­tage, they might as well not bother to hold elec­tions, since the out­come is inevitable. Given the incred­i­ble dif­fi­culty of amend­ing the Con­sti­tu­tion and the fact that the pop­u­lar vote win­ner ulti­mately pre­vails almost all the time, we’re not going to abol­ish the Elec­toral Col­lege. Reform­ing it so that it more accu­rately reflects elec­tion out­comes, though, is within the power of indi­vid­ual state leg­is­la­tures. So long as it’s done well enough in advance, I don’t find that prob­lem­atic. Even when, as is unar­guably the case here, it’s moti­vated by par­ti­san advan­tage rather than philo­soph­i­cal purity.

My thoughts are a tad different.

One of the things that tends to drive me nuts about the GOP is their unwill­ing­ness to take off the gloves, too afraid of what the media and the democ­rats will say ignor­ing the fact that the left, the media and the Democ­rats (who are pretty much the same thing) are going to object no mat­ter what the GOP does.

That being the case the best choice is to ignore them and do what you want to do, or bet­ter yet what your sup­port­ers elected you to do.

The prob­lem is sim­ple, it is vir­tu­ally impos­si­ble to police the cities where the Democ­rats own the black vote in the same way that the bosses of old once did. That being the case I’d like to see a lot more of this kind of thing in states where we can pull it off and as we have the leg­is­la­tures in many states that went Obama we can do it and the left, at the moment, can’t.

Peo­ple (well the left) might say it’s not fair, well TOUGH! It is explic­itly con­sti­tu­tional and all the media hype or com­plaints in the world doesn’t change it.

If Penn­syl­va­nia wants to give their votes pro­por­tion­ally they can do it and if the democ­rats don’t like it they can win seats in the leg­is­la­ture and stop it.

Because if the GOP leg­is­la­ture in Penn­syl­va­nia were really seri­ous they could allo­cate elec­tors in the state based on the pop­u­lar vote results in Wyoming or by a vote of atten­dees at CPAC 2013, (they could charge $1,000,000 a head and sell out every time) or per­haps a major­ity vote of the authors at DaT­e­chGuy blog with ties being decided by the owner.

And it would be per­fectly legal and constitutional.

It sure would make me a lot more popular.

Out of a decent respect for the opinion of mankind, it is customary to give such excuses as “threatening weather” or “wet field.” there is nothing in the world, though, to prevent me from saying the field is unfit because I had a nosebleed behind first base.

Bill Veeck Veeck as in Wreck p 163

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress:

Article 2 Section 1 US Constitution

 

A while back Both Smitty & I took umbrage at the Mass State legislature attempting to disenfranchise me making a change to the way electors are selected in the state but while I still am upset at the change I pointed out that constitutionally the legislature was perfectly within its rights.

Now however the left is getting nervous because the GOP has figured out they can play this same game to their advantage.

In September, top Pennsylvania Republicans shocked the nation by proposing a change to the state’s election rules that would have rigged the Electoral College in favor of Mitt Romney. Facing a nationwide backlash, the state’s GOP backed down—but not before Wisconsin Republicans considered a similar plan. With the old rules still in place, President Barack Obama won a 332-206 electoral college victory over Romney.

But now that Romney has been defeated, prominent GOPers are once again mulling rule changes that could make it harder for Democrats to win the White House—and easier for Republicans to claim Electoral College votes in states where they lose the popular vote.

Maybe it’s just me but I don’t recall Mother Jones objecting when Massachusetts made the move to eventually discard my electoral influence.

At Outside the beltway James Joyner comments:

Awarding the entirely of a state’s votes to even a narrow winner makes no sense whatsoever. And, in the cases of states where one party has a decisive advantage, they might as well not bother to hold elections, since the outcome is inevitable. Given the incredible difficulty of amending the Constitution and the fact that the popular vote winner ultimately prevails almost all the time, we’re not going to abolish the Electoral College. Reforming it so that it more accurately reflects election outcomes, though, is within the power of individual state legislatures. So long as it’s done well enough in advance, I don’t find that problematic. Even when, as is unarguably the case here, it’s motivated by partisan advantage rather than philosophical purity.

My thoughts are a tad different.

One of the things that tends to drive me nuts about the GOP is their unwillingness to take off the gloves, too afraid of what the media and the democrats will say ignoring the fact that the left, the media and the Democrats (who are pretty much the same thing) are going to object no matter what the GOP does.

That being the case the best choice is to ignore them and do what you want to do, or better yet what your supporters elected you to do.

The problem is simple, it is virtually impossible to police the cities where the Democrats own the black vote in the same way that the bosses of old once did. That being the case I’d like to see a lot more of this kind of thing in states where we can pull it off and as we have the legislatures in many states that went Obama we can do it and the left, at the moment, can’t.

People (well the left) might say it’s not fair, well TOUGH! It is explicitly constitutional and all the media hype or complaints in the world doesn’t change it.

If Pennsylvania wants to give their votes proportionally they can do it and if the democrats don’t like it they can win seats in the legislature and stop it.

Because if the GOP legislature in Pennsylvania were really serious they could allocate electors in the state based on the popular vote results in Wyoming or by a vote of attendees at CPAC 2013, (they could charge $1,000,000 a head and sell out every time) or perhaps a majority vote of the authors at DaTechGuy blog with ties being decided by the owner.

And it would be perfectly legal and constitutional.

It sure would make me a lot more popular.

DaTechGuy on DaRadio Saturday Noon EST. WBNW AM 1120 Concord WPLM 1390 Plymouth WESO 970 Southbridge, FTR Radio, the 405 Media

money matters 003

Last week:
Show 82 William Hoge & Aaron Walker on Kimberlin

Next week Radio Talk Host Mike Slater

(Note Sept 6th & 13th LIVE from the Natural Discount Shop

Get Cash for Your Pallets! 1-(800) 248-7543

aaron test

jeffrey’s

jeffrey’s

Buy Raspberry Ketone Here

American 023

Belanger Hardware 284 Water St · Fitchburg · (978) 342-2912

belanger 2

Try the Double Burger!

nashoba

Annie’s Book Stop of Worcester

Annies Book Stop of Worcester 001

Find Discounts at the Stores you Love

TOP STORES

pottery paintin place

pottery paintin place

The Navy Seals in their First Mission

The Navy Seals in their First Mission

Get yours for Kindle Here

Get yours for Kindle Here

Listen to your Granny

RWG

DH Gate Dot Com, Online Shopping

ecigarette

Bernard PC 774-322-6045

Bernard PC 774-322-6045

Support our favorite Charties

Read me at Examiner.com

Examiner badge2

Only 114 Million Hits to retirement!

Monthly Goal (Wage plus Writers) $1445

Olimometer 2.52

Most Innovative Blogger 2013

Most Innovative Blogger 2013

Tags

Day by Day

Help a Brother Knight of Mine who needs a hand