Keystone GOP leaders want the battleground state, which has gone Democratic in the past five presidential elections, to divvy up its 20 votes in the Electoral College according to the winner of each congressional district, rather than the winner-take-all system used by all but two states. In theory, it could allow Republicans to win the majority of Pennsylvania electoral votes even if they lose the popular vote. That’s because many of Pennsylvania’s rural congressional districts are heavily Republican.
The problem: Since statewide vote totals would no longer matter, Republicans worry Democrats will move campaign efforts out of safe Democratic districts in urban population centers and into the more moderate suburbs. That could put extra heat on GOP House candidates.
“This proposal will have a minimal effect on the presidential race at the expense of negatively altering the political landscape for Republicans in Pennsylvania’s House races,” said Mr. Sessions, a Texan who heads the National Republican Congressional Committee.
On one hand, seeing this in the WSJ made me smile. TP vs DC Conserva-schism time.
On the other hand, the protesting by Sessions and some PA Republicans in those swing districts seems hollow to the point of being self-serving fantastical crap. Specifically, it seems designed to blunt Democratic party criticism of the GOP's proposed move as a naked power grab.
On the gripping hand, I've been saying all along that Republicans are winning because they are gathering power at the state level and redistricting Democrats out of existence, leaving a majority of districts as suburban and exurban safe GOP zones and forcing all the state's Dems into one or two minority-majority districts that are 90% blue. Sessions' concerns do reflect the downside of that strategy that some of those new GOP districts are stretched thin. Only so many Tea Party bigots to go around, you know.
We'll see how this works out.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment