Harrisburg - Under a proposal discussed Thursday in a state House committee, Pennsylvania would join Maryland in backing a presidential election system that would assure the candidate with the most popular votes reached the White House.
The House Intergovernmental Affairs Committee began discussing, but took no vote on, a bill sponsored by Rep. Mark Cohen, D-Philadelphia, that presents an alternative to the Electoral College system of choosing a president.
Matching legislation has been introduced in 47 other states and enacted in Maryland. It would not eliminate the Electoral College, a step that would require a Constitutional amendment.
Instead, Cohen’s bill would have Pennsylvania make a compact to commit its electors to casting their Electoral College votes for the candidate who won the national popular vote.
Under the current system, Pennsylvania’s electors, as in most states, support the candidate who wins Pennsylvania’s popular vote.
The Electoral College has elected four presidents who did not win the popular vote nationwide, most recently in 2000, when George W. Bush received fewer popular votes than Democratic candidate Al Gore. It also happened in 1824, 1876 and 1888 with the elections, respectively, of John Quincy Adams, Rutherford B. Hayes and Benjamin Harrison.
“When our nation selects a leader that does not have the support of the majority of its citizens, we are a weaker country for it,” Barry Kauffman, executive director of Common Cause PA, said.
Freshman Rep. Bill Kortz, D-Allegheny, disagreed. “If every person in this state voted for A, but everybody else [in the country] voted for B, we got to give it to B, right? Our votes wouldn’t count. ... We’re disenfranchising our great state.”
Christopher Pearson, a Vermont legislator working with the National Public Vote group, which is coordinating national support for the effort, argued otherwise.
“Every one of your voters would have their votes count” toward the aggregate total of the nationwide popular vote, Pearson told the committee.
John Samples, of the libertarian-leaning Cato Institute in Washington, D.C., disliked the direct popular vote approach, calling it a step “toward nationalized government” where states would essentially be subunits of the federal government.
Pearson argued that a popular vote system could put smaller and “safe” states, where a particular party dominates, back on the presidential campaign trail.
He said 99 percent of the money spent on the 2004 presidential election was spent in 16 states.
“Most of the country was on the sidelines,” Pearson said. “If you had a popular vote, votes are equal.
“There would not be a reason to neglect any area of the country.”
Kortz said he fears a popular vote would lead to election of a third-party candidate with radical views.
University of Pennsylvania political science professor Jack Nagel conceded a third-party candidate might receive enough popular votes, but noted the current system allows a third-party candidate whose support is concentrated in a few states to create an Electoral College failure by preventing any candidate from capturing the 270 electoral votes necessary to win.
When that happens, and the House of Representatives makes the decision, each state’s delegation has one vote, Nagel testified. That further dilutes the clout of more populous states and strengthens smaller ones, he said.
“The National Popular Vote Act guarantees that the Electoral College will choose a president with no need to risk a potential deadlock, unpopular choice or disastrous deal in the House,” Nagel said.
