Jesse White – 9/21/11

 


This page was last updated on September 22, 2011.


Political Battle Chess is a Bad Idea for Pennsylvania; State Rep. Jesse White (D-46); September 21, 2011.  Mr. White lost in Beaver County in both 2006 and 2010.

Previous White pieces I critiqued are here, here, and here.

You can also find this piece on the Beaver CountianThe Beaver Countian appears to be a “one man band” consisting of John Paul, a self-described “citizen journalist.”

Below is a detailed critique of excerpts from the subject opinion piece.


“With the 2012 election just over a year away, Pennsylvania is poised to step into the national spotlight as a key battleground state.  Our twenty votes in the Electoral College, coupled with a wildly diverse combination of urban, rural and suburban voters, make Pennsylvania arguably one of the top five important states in electing the President of the United States.

[RWC] The purpose of this critique isn’t to lobby for or against the proposed changes for assigning PA’s electoral vote.  I tend to question changes like this, but I haven’t done the research required to make an informed decision.  The purpose of the critique is to highlight Rep. White’s problems with the facts he uses to support his opposition.

“But if Republicans in Harrisburg have their way, Pennsylvania’s days as a presidential powerhouse could be all but over.  The plan, proposed by Republican Senate Leader Dominic Pileggi and backed by Governor Tom Corbett, would end the ‘winner-take-all’ system for Pennsylvania’s twenty electoral votes.  Instead, each congressional district would receive one electoral vote, with two at-large votes remaining for the entire state.  Such a scheme would dramatically and fundamentally change the way we vote in presidential elections.

“Before we dive any deeper into the specifics, let’s be clear about one thing.  The Republican Party controls both chambers of the Legislature and the Governor’s mansion, so they have the power to basically do whatever they want.  Based on their own members’ statements, this is about politics, pure and simple.  Pennsylvania has been a ‘blue state’ in presidential elections since 1992, and the Republicans want to make sure they are in the best position possible to make sure that doesn’t happen in 2012.”

[RWC] Did you see Mr. White complain when Democrats were in the same position in Washington, DC, and they had “the power to basically do whatever they want[ed]?”  Hint: I checked Mr. White’s blog back to 2009 when Democrats were the majority in the PA House and we had a Democrat governor.  Though I have to concede this wasn’t an exhaustive search, I found no negative comments about the House or the Governor.  I did find something curious, however.

In “Want corruption exposed? This is what it looks like,” Mr. White wrote, “Last week, the Pennsylvania Attorney General finally issued the next round of indictments in his ongoing ‘Bonusgate’ investigation of corruption in the Pennsylvania Legislature.  Last year, twelve individuals (two representatives and ten staffers) were indicted for a variety of charges, mainly dealing with the use of public money for political campaigns in the Democratic Caucus.  Their trials are pending.  The latest round of indictments dealt with corruption in the House Republican Caucus, and the amount of public money involved will just turn your stomach.  According to the 180-page presentment tells a disturbing tale of how the Republican Caucus, under the leadership of former Speaker of the House John Perzel, allegedly spent nearly $20 million in taxpayer money on computer systems that were being used to run political campaigns with no legislative purpose whatsoever.”  Did you note what Mr. White omitted?

First, Mr. “I’m not a partisan” White simply referred to the Democrat offenders but didn’t mention “a disturbing tale” of “the amount of public money involved” or that it would “just turn your stomach” as he did for the Republicans.  I have no problem with how Mr. White represented the indicted Republicans, only that he didn’t do the same for the Democrats.  Second, Mr. White didn’t get around to mentioning the name of “the Pennsylvania Attorney General” (Tom Corbett) who “issued the next round of indictments” or his political affiliation (Republican).  I’m sure it had nothing to do with the fact everyone knew Mr. Corbett planned to run for Governor.  Perhaps Mr. White ran out of space. <g>

“In fact, some of the most interesting debate seems to be among Republicans, divided over the best way to get the biggest bang for their seemingly endless bucks.  Party heavyweights like Republican National Chairman Reince Priebus, Pennsylvania State Party Chairman Rob Gleason and several Republican Congressmen have expressed concern about the plan for varying reasons.  Some think it’s a bad idea because they believe the GOP will carry the entire state in 2012, so they would be giving up electoral votes in cities like Philadelphia and Pittsburgh that will almost certainly vote Democrat.  Others in suburban areas are concerned there will problems for moderate Republicans.”

[RWC] “Republicans … seemingly endless bucks?”  Come on, Mr. White, who buys the “Democrats = poor” and “Republicans = rich” BS?  As a reminder, during the 2008 campaign, at $745 million the Obama campaign raised more than twice as much as the McCain campaign.  In the last two national elections, Democrats outspent Republicans.  Finally, I’ll go out on a limb and assume few of the folks attending “a $35,800-a-ticket fundraiser next month in Chicago” (hosted by multi-billionaire Warren Buffett) for President Obama will be Republicans.

“Both points are valid, but they clearly highlight one of the primary reasons why this is a very bad idea.  The fundamental question has been defined as whether it is the best way for one party to permanently tilt the system in their favor.  This isn’t about the voters, not one bit.  It’s a power grab, pure and simple.

“Two other states have a similar system (Maine and Nebraska), but they are too small to have any real electoral impact, and Nebraska is considering a return to the old system because the Republican party there wants to make sure the Democrats don’t repeat their 2008 showing, when Barack Obama actually won one electoral vote in an Omaha Congressional district.  It really is that politically-motivated.”

[RWC] It’s hard for me not to chuckle when one politician accuses another of “politically-motivated” actions.  It could be a sign of the apocalypse if a politician ever admits he supports something purely for politics.

“Under the current system, your vote still matters even if you live in an area of the state where you may be politically outnumbered.  Candidates must campaign everywhere in Pennsylvania and campaigns must spend money in businesses everywhere in Pennsylvania.  By switching to a ‘Congressional District’ method, Pennsylvania’s economy will suffer, candidates will simply ignore districts they cannot win and voters will be disenfranchised because of where they live in the state.”

[RWC] This paragraph has problems.

Under the current “winner-takes-all” system, a candidate can receive 49.9% of the votes yet receive zero electoral votes.  Indeed, a candidate only needs a plurality of the vote to receive all of the commonwealth’s electoral votes.  Therefore, how can Mr. White claim “your vote still matters even if you live in an area of the state where you may be politically outnumbered?”

“Under the current system … Candidates must campaign everywhere in Pennsylvania?”  Why?  Just as candidates focus on “swing states” and states with the most electoral votes, they do the same within a state.  That is, candidates focus on a state’s major population (vote) centers.  Because congressional districts are based on population and not area, most of the districts are in close proximity to Philadelphia or Pittsburgh.  I’ll go out on a limb and guess presidential candidates already spend a lot more time around metropolitan Philadelphia and metropolitan Pittsburgh than they do around Bradford, DuBois, Leeper, Tionesta, et cetera.

“By switching to a ‘Congressional District’ method, Pennsylvania’s economy will suffer?”  Seriously?  This is a pretty big stretch.  Even if it were true, PA is in real trouble if more or less campaign spending has any significant impact on our economy.

“[C]andidates will simply ignore districts they cannot win and voters will be disenfranchised because of where they live in the state?”  This already happens.  Candidates tend to focus their campaign on locales they expect to win (to secure their base) and on those they think they can win.  Winning candidates don’t throw their time and campaign funding at lost causes.

“On a more fundamental level, elections are supposed to be tough but fair contests where good candidates with good ideas deserve a fair chance if they work hard to reach the voters.  The obscene amounts of money and special interests cultivating the hostile features of our political landscape make the fight less and less fair every single day.  As someone who has been in the trenches for a few years now, I know how tough it can be, and this is definitely a giant leap in the wrong direction.”

[RWC] Mr. White writes of “The obscene amounts of money and special interests,” yet that didn’t stop him from accepting campaign contributions from “special interests.”

“If politics are comparable to a chess match, this election proposal is the equivalent of winning the game by shoving a pawn up your opponent’s nose and then beating him over the head with the board.  You don’t change a system we’ve operated under for over 220 years just because you think it might help you beat one guy in one election.  This is a power grab, pure and simple, and a bad idea for any voter in Pennsylvania, Democrat, Republican or Independent, who still believes in the power of change via the ballot box.”

[RWC] Here’s a rhetorical question.  Would Mr. White have written this piece if Democrats were in the driver’s seat and a Democrat made this proposal?


© 2004-2011 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.