Category Archives: Elections

The Pileggi Electoral College Plan and 1960

Posted on by
Reply

In 1962, after the successive failures of both his presidential and gubernatorial campaigns, a weary Richard Nixon bid the press goodbye:

But as I leave you, I want you to know: just think how much you’re going to be missing. You don’t have Nixon to kick around anymore.

Of course, if Pennsylvania Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi had his way, Nixon might not have spoken those famous words. He would not have had to: if Senator Pileggi had been in charge, Nixon might have beaten John F. Kennedy and become president in 1960.

I am referring, of course, to Senator Pileggi’s ill-conceived Electoral College plan (next session’s version, last session’s plan was defeated). The idea is simple: divide all but two of a state’ Electoral College votes up and award them to the candidates according to the percentage of the popular vote that they won. The candidate that wins the state then gets the extra two votes.

Take the 2012 election, for instance. President Barack Obama won about 52 percent of the popular vote to Governor Mitt Romney’s 47 percent. This gives President Obama 12 electoral votes (10 electoral votes for the popular vote, plus 2 more for winning state-wide).

This would not have changed the outcome of the 2012 election. Indeed, changing Pennsylvania alone might not have altered the outcome of most American elections. But it would have had an effect. For instance, in 2000, President George W. Bush’s margin of victory would have been larger, even though he still would have lost the popular vote.

But to really demonstrate how Pileggi’s system would work, imagine that his plan was in effect in all 50 states. Under this scenario, John F. Kennedy stands a good chance of beating Nixon in the popular vote, but losing to him in the Electoral College.

According to my calculations, the Electoral College votes come in like this:

  • 264 for Kennedy
  • 267 for Nixon
  • 6 Unpledged Electors

Those unpledged electors would have come from the largely Democratic Louisiana and Mississippi. But these states were part of the Southern, conservative wing of the Democratic Party — a wing that was suspicious of Kennedy and that Nixon would successfully court years later. It only would have taken 3 of those 6 to make Nixon president.

Can we say with absolute certainty that Kennedy would have absolutely lost in 1960? No. But it is surely a possibility. And a reason to be wary of any claims that Pileggi’s proposal is somehow fairer than the current system.

FURTHER READING

1960 Presidential Election Results: Pileggi Plan (Excel), Diniverse Major Blog.

Co-Sponsorship Memo, Dominic Pileggi.

“Pileggi to reintroduce plan to change Pennsylvania electoral-vote system,” Philadelphia Inquirer.

“Corbett-Pileggi plan bad for democracy,” Michael J. Gaudini (Main Line Times). *(This article refers to last session’s Electoral College plan)

What Would Have Happened in 2012 Under Gov. Corbett’s Election Plan?

Posted on by
Reply

Last session, Governor Tom Corbett and Pennsylvania Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi unveiled a plan to change how Pennsylvania votes for president. Now that the 2012 election has actually been held, Pennsylvanians can see for themselves how that system would have impacted their votes.

But first, a bit of context. Americans do not vote for president directly. Instead, they vote through the Electoral College. In the Electoral College system, each state gets a number of electoral votes for president equal to their representation in Congress. Pennsylvania has 18 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives and 2 in the U.S. Senate, so therefore it gets 20 electoral votes.

States can choose to decide how they distribute those votes, but most states give all of their electoral votes to the presidential candidate that wins the statewide election. And, for most of American history, that has worked. Four times in the past, however, president have lost the popular vote but won the presidency: John Quincy Adams, Rutherford B. Hayes, Benjamin Harrison, and George W. Bush.

The other key concept to keep in mind here is redistricting. Redistricting is the process by which legislators redraw political boundaries to account for population shifts. After all, people move, are born, and die every day. In order to make sure that elected officials represent about the same number of people, legislators redistrict their state and Congressional seats every 10 years using U.S. Census data. Without this, one official could end up representing several times as many people as another — even though they both only get one vote in Congress.

States redistrict differently. In Pennsylvania, Congressional redistricting is passed like any other bill. The General Assembly writes it and passes it, and the governor signs it. (There is a different system for General Assembly redistricting, but it is not relevant to this discussion.) There are also few prohibitions on how legislators can choose to redraw the political maps. Legislators cannot discriminate against voters based on race, but beyond that they generally have carte blanche.

This means that legislators can — and do — split up blocs of voters to help their party. If one area generally votes for Party X, legislators from Party Y can simply split up that area into numerous districts that each have a Party Y majority. Thus, Party Y maintains control by watering down Party X’s power — a process known as ‘gerrymandering.’

All of this means that whoever controls the General Assembly and the governorship essentially controls the political landscape of Pennsylvania. For the past few redistrictings, that has been the Republican Party. And so, they have drawn Congressional maps that benefit the Republican Party.

Here’s where Governor Corbett and Senator Pileggi’s plan comes in. It would have split Pennsylvania’s electoral votes by giving them to presidential candidates according to which Congressional districts they win. The candidate to win the entire state then gets an additional 2 electoral votes, to make up the difference between electoral votes and Congressional districts. Of course, the Republican Party is drawing those same Congressional districts that they want to use to distribute electoral votes.

So, how would Pennsylvania have fared if this plan was in place for the 2012 election? Well, President Obama won the Pennsylvania popular vote about 52% – 47%. Under the current system, this means Obama got 20 electoral votes. Under Governor Corbett and Senator Pileggi’s plan, however, this means Obama would have gotten 7 votes, while Governor Romney would have gotten 13 votes.

To put it another way: under Governor Corbett’s plan, Obama would have won the popular vote in Pennsylvania, but lost the electoral vote. Fortunately for President Obama, this would not have changed the outcome of the 2012 election. Other presidents would not have been so lucky. Had the Corbett system been in place in 1960, for example, John F. Kennedy would never have become President of the United States.

Elections will always be partisan affairs; what they should not be is undemocratic.

FURTHER READING

Michael J. Gaudini, “Corbett-Pileggi election plan bad for democracy,” Main Line Times.

Michael J. Gaudini, “Gerrymandering undermines democracy in Pennsylvania,” Main Line Times.

Michael J. Gaudini, “Redistricting Texas 2012: A Primer,” Diniverse Major.

Michael J. Gaudini, “What You Should Know About Redistricting in PA,” Diniverse Major.

Pennsylvania 2012 Election Results, CBS News.

 

I Voted For President! Now What?

Posted on by
Reply

Americans just do not like to vote.

For all of the talk of American democracy and the importance of the ballot, a strikingly small number of eligible Americans show up at the polls each November. Presidential elections, of course, see the largest level of turnout as a percentage of the voting age population. But for many Americans, that is it. The only time they see the inside of a voting booth is in a year that is divisible by four.

Take Pennsylvania, for example. In 2008, when Barack Obama was elected president, about 64 percent of eligible Pennsylvanians showed up at the polls. That was a couple points above the nationwide turnout of about 62 percent.

Just two years later, those numbers were down to 42 percent for Pennsylvania and 41 percent for the United States. That election, significantly, decided which party would control not only the House of Representatives, but numerous state legislatures and governor’s seats. Last year, turnout in Pennsylvania dropped even lower, to 32 percent.

The Keystone State is no outlier; most states see similarly dismal figures. Why, then, is voter turnout so much lower in midterm and off-year elections? To simplify: the president. Or, rather, the absence of a presidential candidate on the ballot. The president is the only official elected nationwide in the United States. Campaigns for the office are fought over high-stakes national and global issues. The media cover the proceedings extensively.

And the perception that there will be relatively high voter participation, possibly reinforced by friendly conversation and media coverage, could have the effect of turning out more voters simply due to social pressure. That is, people go to the polls because they do not want to be the person caught not voting.*

All of this can make presidential elections seem more relevant than off-year or midterm elections. But these latter elections — which generally feature many state and local positions — often have a direct impact on voters’ everyday lives. State and local governments are the ‘boots on the ground.’ They are responsible for keeping your neighborhood safe, paving your streets, picking up your trash, educating your children, providing for poor, zoning your community, and countless other services that affect your daily life. As Hurricane Sandy has recently reminded many Americans, state and local governments also prepare for and respond to natural disasters.

Not only that, but these elections also have far-reaching political ramifications. I wrote about just such a situation in a 2011 election op-ed:

[I]n 2009, only 21 percent of registered Pennsylvanians cast their ballots. The majority of those select few chose Republican candidate Joan Orie Melvin as the next justice of the PA Supreme Court, solidifying a 4-3 Republican majority on the bench.

 

This year, as in the past, the Supreme Court was called upon to choose the tie-breaking member of the commission that redraws the legislative districts in the state every decade. The resulting map was a patchwork of gerrymandering and political protection submitted on a party-line vote in the Republicans’ favor. By carefully designating which group of voters elects which representative, this map will likely dictate the outcome of Pennsylvania’s elections for years.

And it had the potential to dictate the 2012 presidential election, as well. That year, Pennsylvania Republicans (swept into office in a midterm election) introduced a bill that would have changed the way the Commonwealth distributes its electoral votes for president. Instead of following the “majority wins” system that nearly all other states use, this plan would have split its votes according to Congressional districts that the Republicans themselves drew. To put that into perspective, had this system been in place in 1960, Richard Nixon would have bested John F. Kennedy for the presidency.

Midterm and off-year elections can have huge ramifications. Keep that in mind for 2013, and beyond.

FOOTNOTES

*As an aside, Pennsylvania actually has a “Voter Hall of Fame,” where it recognizes those citizens who have cast their ballots every November for 50 consecutive years or more. If you have not gotten started on that yet, now might be a good time.

FURTHER READING

Michael J. Gaudini, “Corbett-Pileggi election plan bad for democracy,” Main Line Times.

Michael J. Gaudini, “‘Like’ the Vote,” Diniverse Major.

Michael J. Gaudini, “Think Off-Year Elections are Unimportant? Think Again,” Narberth-Bala Cynwyd Patch.

“United States Election Project: Voter Turnout,” George Mason University.

“Voter Hall of Fame,” Pennsylvania Department of State.

‘Like’ the Vote

Posted on by
Reply

America had an electoral fraud problem. Voter intimidation was pervasive. Bribery, too, was common. Laws against both were regularly ignored. What Americans needed most was a secret ballot.

Today, many people may take for granted the fact that they are able to cast their ballots in secret, but Americans that lived up until the late 1800s had no such illusions.

“Confidence was shaken in a voting system which made known the contents of every man’s ballot,” declared an 1892 essay on a new Pennsylvania law that established, for the first time in the state’s history, a secret ballot.

The new system, known as the “Australian system” after the country in which it was first implemented in 1856, ensured secrecy and fairness in several key ways. It stipulated that all ballots must be the exact same. It ordered the names of all legally nominated candidates be printed on the ballots. And it required voters to mark their preferences in secret.

The laws combated intimidation and bribery by making it difficult to verify how a person had actually voted. But the laws, which had spread to nearly every state by 1892, had another, unintended side effect, as well.

Voter turnout in the mid to late 1800s had been fairly high, around 70 to 80 percent of the voting age population for presidential elections. In the years after the spread of the secret ballot, that percentage steadily tumbled, finally settling around about 50 to 60 percent.

What happened?

Well, the late 1800s were a period of rapid change in America. Industrialization was quickly changing the country. Immigration increased tremendously and the population exploded, with workers flocking to the nation’s cities. At the same time, reformers focused on “good government” laws, like civil service reform, and attacked political ‘bosses’ and their machines.

All of these societal changes likely had an effect on voter turnout. But so too did the secret ballot.

Voting has long confounded economists, as the act of voting seems to be inherently irrational. The gains — one lousy vote in an election decided by hundreds of thousands — seem small compared to the time and effort spent waiting in line at the polling place.

True, there is also the satisfaction of performing a civic duty, but there is also another important component to why people vote: social pressure. Simply put, people know they are “supposed to vote,” and do not want to be caught otherwise.

A 2008 study of Swiss voter turnout after the adoption of optional postal voting demonstrated this. Postal voting, in which citizens can mail in their ballots, is meant to reduce the costs of voting and increase turnout. Yet in small Swiss communities — the types of places where one might expect voters are more likely to know each other — turnout actually went down. Postal ballots, it seems, may have eliminated the social pressure to be seen at the polls because, well, maybe that person mailed in their ballot.

The opposite also appears to be true. In 2006, researchers sent out several kinds of mailers to Michigan citizens, one of which  promised to publish whether they and their neighbors voted in the next election. They found that those people who thought their voter turnout information would be publicized were more likely to vote.

Which brings us to Facebook. If social pressures impact voter turnout, then it would make sense that social media affect it as well. And, in fact, this is exactly what researchers studying the 2010 election reported. On Election Day, Facebook provided an “I Voted” button at the top of users’ news feeds for them to show they had cast their ballots. Some users were shown the pictures of friends who had voted; others were not. By comparing friend data with voter rolls, researchers determined that the first group were more likely to vote in that election.

So go ahead and tweet your followers or update your status this Election Day to let everyone know you voted. You never know who might be watching.

–FURTHER READING–

Charles Binney, “American Secret Ballot Decisions,” American Law Register and Review.

Charles Binney, “The Merits and Defects of the Pennsylvania Ballot Law of 1891.”

Robert Bond, et al, “A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization,” Nature.

Stephen Dubner and Steven Levitt, “Why Vote?” New York Times.

Patricia Funk, “Social Incentives and Voter Turnout: Evidence from the Swiss Mail Ballot System.”

Michael J. Gaudini, “Election-time reflections on the irrational voter,” Main Line Times.

Alan Gerber, et al, “Social Pressure and Voter Turnout: Evidence from a Large-Scale Field Experiment,” American Political Science Review.

John Markoff, “Social Networks Can Affect Voter Turnout, Study Says,” New York Times.

“Voter Turnout in Presidential Elections: 1828-2008,” The American Presidency Project.

 

Changing a Law to Win an Election?

Posted on by
Reply

The Main Line Times’ “Notes from Narberth” columnist wrote a piece on August 7 (“Narberth zoning meeting; more on voter-ID need“) using Al Schmidt’s recent report on voting irregularities in Philadelphia as proof of need for a Voter ID law. You may read that here.

My response (“Changing a law to win an election?“) was published on the Main Line Times’ website on August 11. You may read that on the Main Line Times’ site here, or below.

 

One of the most interesting things about Philadelphia City Commissioner Al Schmidt’s report on “voting irregularities” is not what it says, but how it is being used. Proponents of Pennsylvania’s new Voter ID have praised the report as damning evidence of pervasive voter fraud – which is ironic, considering that a reading of the report gives no such impression.

First of all, Schmidt’s report is not a scientific study, and says nothing about how extensively voter fraud occurs – it only identifies seven types of voting irregularities. And of those seven kinds, the Voter ID law would stop only one. Whether the other six constitute legitimate problems or not is largely irrelevant to the Voter ID debate.

The problem Voter ID actually addresses can be boiled down to one question: is the person at the polling place who he says he is? Under current law, voters must prove who they are the first time they vote at a new polling place, and may use a variety of means to do so. Voters can face harsh punishments for not complying with election law ($10,000 in fines and 5 years in prison for voter impersonation) while they get little in return (one extra vote in an election decided by hundreds of thousands).

Faced with this information, you might conclude that voter impersonation rarely happens. All available evidence suggests you would be right. Numerous studies and investigations – including by the Bush Justice Department – have all reached this conclusion. The attorneys defending the Voter ID law in court recently agreed as well. So it is not surprising that Voter ID supporters have relied upon a single case: “the mysterious case of Joseph Cheeseboro” that the August 5 “Notes from Narberth” column referenced.

In any given election, Mr. Cheeseboro is little more than a rounding error. The same cannot be said of the more than 758,000 Pennsylvanians who may be disenfranchised by this law – a group disproportionately made up of elderly, minority, student and handicapped voters. That figure is larger than President Obama’s 2008 margin of victory, and to date new Voter IDs have been issued to less than 0.5 percent of that number.

Of course, even one illegal vote is one too many, but any voting system will leave room for error. The fundamental question at the Voter ID debate’s core is how to resolve the natural tension that arises from wanting to both keep elections accessible, while preventing any potential fraud.

Opponents of Voter ID do not, as the “Notes from Narberth” column contends, “think black people are too dumb to figure out how to get a photo ID.” Rather, we are concerned because the process of obtaining the underlying documentation and standing in line for several hours at a PennDOT center makes voting less accessible to legitimate voters, especially elderly and handicapped ones. It also opens the door to further chicanery, by providing another venue for vote challenging at the polls.

But perhaps most concerning of all is the nagging suspicion that the law was aimed to, as House Majority Leader Mike Turzai boasted, “allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania.” When you have to resort to changing the law in order to win an election, there is something wrong.

 

Voter Meddling Would Be PA’s New Voter ID Law

Posted on by
Reply

The Main Line Times’ “Notes from Narberth” columnist wrote a piece on June 14 (“Don’t believe the rhetoric: Voter ID is fair to all“) defending Pennsylvania’s new Voter ID law as “a no-brainer” and attacking the many problems with the law as “phony.” You may read that column here.

My response (“Voter meddling would be Pa.’s new Voter ID law“) was published in the following week’s Main Line Times. You may read that on the Main Line Times’ site here, or below.

 

The June 14 “Notes from Narberth” column’s ardent defense of the new Voter ID law (“Don’t believe the rhetoric: Voter ID law is fair to all”) is fundamentally flawed.

At a basic level, I would question whether it is appropriate to compare the procedure required to attend the Penn Relays with that of voting. The latter, after all, is both a civic duty and a right, whereas the former is a private sports event.

Even putting these reservations aside, the column relies much too heavily on anecdotal evidence. It may, indeed, be true that “over 39,000 people, primarily African-Americans,” were able to show some form of photo identification in order to attend the Penn Relays. But even if every single one of those persons were black Philadelphians, that is still only 6 percent of the city’s black population. What about the other 94 percent? Could any of them be lacking a photo ID?

The short answer is yes. State and local figures are hard to come by, but national statistics on which populations generally lack the identification now required to exercise the constitutional right to vote in Pennsylvania are available. As it turns out, certain populations are far more likely to lack the appropriate identification: 25 percent of African-Americans, 15 percent of those making below $35,000 per year, 18 percent of senior citizens, and 20 percent of young voters.

There are many reasons these people may lack the kinds of identification that the law now requires. Perhaps they live in the city and have little use for a car. Perhaps they are elderly and no longer drive. Or perhaps their drivers’ licenses were taken by the state, for any number of legitimate reasons, ranging from underage drinking to failing the vision and medical testing the Department of Transportation administers randomly to drivers over 45. Surely, the right to participate in the democratic process should not be contingent upon such things?

As for handicapped Pennsylvanians, there are no available statistics on how many of these citizens lack the appropriate identification, but it is not a stretch to assume if someone cannot physically drive a car, they would both lack a driver’s license and also face formidable obstacles to acquiring a Voter ID card, such as transportation and the long waits associated with DMV offices.

It is also important to note here that only specific forms of photo identification are allowed under the Voter ID law – namely, government-issued photo IDs, Pennsylvania college IDs, or care facility IDs. Of course, a key problem is that some forms of ID that at first would appear valid under this law are actually barred because it requires a visible expiration date. As a result, most veteran and college ID cards will not be acceptable.

There is also the financial cost to consider as well: implementing the law has been price-tagged at around $11 million, at a time when Governor Corbett is insisting on deep cuts in education.

But surely there are huge benefits to a Voter ID law that would outweigh these objections? Surveying the evidence, one would be forced to conclude otherwise. Perpetrating the very specific form of voter-impersonation fraud this law claims to target is already incredibly difficult and subject to huge penalties. The risks of up to 5 years in prison and a $10,000 fine certainly do not outweigh the benefit of a single extra vote in an election likely to be decided by thousands. Simply enforcing the law, as it existed before this Voter ID legislation, would have been enough to ensure the integrity of our electoral process without disenfranchising thousands of Pennsylvania voters.

As The Economist magazine noted last March, voter fraud is actually quite rare, but “a more frequent tactic is to alter election laws.” For an example of such meddling, one need look no further than Pennsylvania’s new Voter ID law.

Voter ID Bill Aims to Help Republicans

Posted on by
Reply

The following column was published in the Delco Times in November 2011, as the Voter ID bill was making its way through the PA General Assembly. You may read it on the Delco Times’ website here, or below.

 

Last summer, Gov. Corbett and General Assembly Republicans passed a budget with deep cuts to education, claiming their fiscal discipline would lead to future economic growth. Now, they have shifted their focus to a different form of stimulus: the political kind.

With control of both the executive and the Legislature, Republican politicians have been quick to pursue policies that would fix the system in their favor. Legislative districts are already being meticulously designed to preserve political power. An electoral “reform” bill has proposed distributing the state’s Electoral College votes by gerrymandered congressional district, guaranteeing that several are cast for the Republican presidential candidate.

And a voter identification bill is winding its way through the Legislature, promising to “safeguard” our elections by demanding voters show their government-issued ID at the polls.

This last proposal is particularly galling because it appears, on its face, to be reasonable. Closer inspection, however, reveals the bill’s true aim is to utilize the fear of voter fraud to depress turnout for poor and minority populations.

The bill’s sponsor, state Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, R-Butler, says his plan addresses a serious threat to democracy. But such claims of widespread voter fraud are overblown, at best.

In fact, voter fraud is incredibly rare. A vigorous prosecution of voter fraud by the Bush administration found a scant 86 instances in the country over a five-year investigation.

This should not come as a surprise. Voter fraud is already quite hard to pull off, with little to no payoff. Penalties are stiff: up to $10,000 and five years in prison. Illegal immigrants would face deportation. The visibility of the voter fraud alone (after all, perpetrators would have to show up and interact with poll workers) deters the crime.

And even if an individual or group were crazy enough to attempt this, they would have to reproduce this fraud on an almost impossibly massive scale – the thousands of votes generally needed to swing an election.

This is not to make light of voter fraud. Undermining democracy is surely an egregious offense. But this bill provides an excessively harsh solution to an already-rare problem.

Under current law, voters must provide identification the first time they vote in a district. Photo identification is the norm, though accommodations are made for those without one (such as a showing a bill or paycheck instead).

Metcalfe’s bill would force all citizens to provide a government-issued photo ID at the polls every year, despite their inherent right to participate in representative government. Student and employee IDs, currently acceptable, would be disallowed.

For many, this may not seem too extreme. But consider for a moment that about 11 percent of all Americans would not be allowed to vote under this law, and that the majority of that 11 percent are poor and minority voters.

Then consider that implementing the bill will cost about $11 million (providing identification to those who need it, educating the public about the changes, etc.).

The costs of this bill – in both dollars and depressed voter participation – outweigh the extremely small benefits it might yield. Simply enforcing current law saves both time and money while also safeguarding our elections.

The great irony of Metcalfe’s bill is that it seeks to capitalize on the fear that shadowy forces are subverting our democracy – and then it goes ahead and proposes just such a subversion.

 

November 2010 Endorsements

Posted on by
1

In this blog post, I’ll list various candidates on Pennsylvania ballots, and which ones the Philadelphia Inquirer and the Daily News are endorsing.

Philadelphia Ballot Questions can be viewed here. Sample ballots available here.

Also, check out Ballotpedia for a good resource.

-PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER-

  • Governor — Dan Onorato
  • Senator — Joe Sestak
  • House, 8th District — Patrick Murphy
  • House, 6th District — Jim Gerlach
  • House, 7th District — Pat Meehan
  • House, 13th District — Allyson Schwartz
  • House, 2nd District — Chaka Fattah
  • House, 16th District — Joe Pitts
  • (For State Senate and State House endorsements, see the Inquirer’s website — link)
  • Philadelphia Ballot Question 1 — Yes.
  • Philadelphia Ballot Question 2 — Yes.
  • Philadelphia Ballot Question 3 — Yes.
  • Philadelphia Ballot Question 4 — Yes.

-PHILADELPHIA DAILY NEWS-

-The Delco Times also has many state-level endorsements-

-COMMITTEE OF SEVENTY-

  • Philadelphia Ballot Question 1 — No.
  • Philadelphia Ballot Question 2 — Yes.
  • Philadelphia Ballot Question 3 — Yes.
  • Philadelphia Ballot Question 4 — N/A.


Midterm Voter Guide

Posted on by
Reply

My blogs on the various midterm races seem to have gotten a bit spread out, so I’ll attempt to consolidate a bit. Follow the links to each of the blogs.

Also, if you’re not sure of your polling place or your district (and the officials that currently represent you), take a trip over to the Online Citizen’s Guide at the Committee of Seventy’s website. It is incredibly easy and quick.

Endorsements can be found here.

Philadelphia will have four ballot questions. You can see them at the Committee of Seventy’s website, and you can see which of those questions organizations (like the Philadelphia Inquirer and the Committee of Seventy) are endorsing or opposing in my endorsements post.

Ballotpedia is also a good resource.

Also, “Radio Times” with Marty Moss-Coane has some good interviews with some of the candidates, and is seeking to arrange interviews in the coming weeks with the others. Find these interviews for free on iTunes under “Radio Times” or at the following links:


Corbett v. Onorato for PA Governor

Posted on by
11

With the primaries done, two candidates have emerged in the final run for Pennsylvania Governor, 2010: Tom Corbett and Dan Onorato. In this blog post, I’ll try to compare their stances to reach a better understanding of what each plans to bring to the table if elected governor.

Update — WHYY’s Radio Times with Marty Moss-Coane has an interview with Dan Onorato. Listen to it at their website, or find it in the iTunes store under the Radio Times podcast. On the program, Marty Moss-Coane says they are looking into setting up an interview in the coming weeks with Tom Corbett as well.

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review has an overview of the candidates as well.

(NOTE: Most information here has been taken from the candidates’ websites and policy papers. To view them, click on the links provided at the beginning of each candidates’ sections.)

– Government Reform

  • Corbett
    • Calling for a 10% reduction in administrative costs
    • Plans to upgrade technology and communications among various government agencies in order to make them more efficient and cut costs.
    • Increase transparency by “enhanc[ing] the current online contracts database to include all aspects of the state budget as well as all revenues and expenditures.”
    • Eliminate “Walking Around Money” (money legislators have to give out to various groups) and discretionary spending
    • Eliminating per diem expenses given to legislators
    • Reducing state-owned vehicles by 20%
    • Change to a two-year budget cycle
    • State agencies must meet performance goals in order to retain funding
    • “Cap the legislative surplus at a percentage of the House and Senate annual operating budgets.”
    • Audit state boards and commissions
    • Limit of 5 years for a new board or commission
    • Consolidate services where possible to increase efficiency
    • Introducing health insurance co-pays for representatives
    • Banning political contributions when government contract are being bid on
  • Onorato
    • Campaign finance limits
    • Ban appointed officials from accepting free gifts given by lobbyists “with business before the Administration”
    • Require lobbyists to disclose which branch of government they are lobbying and itemize lobbyist expenditures issue-by-issue
    • “Cooling off period” banning former officials from working for industries they once regulated for two years
    • Increase voter participation by ending the requirement for certain criteria to be met in order to submit an absentee ballot
    • Stop the legislature from setting its own pay by establishing an independent commission with a fixed term that will be responsible for setting salary for elected officials
    • Eliminating per diem expenses given to legislators
    • Stopping legislator use of state-owned vehicles unless it will be cheaper than mileage reimbursement
    • Introducing health insurance co-pays for representatives
    • Eliminate legislative perks (like free cell phones)
    • 12-year term limit for PA Senators and Representatives
    • Cut costs by shrinking the size of the legislature
    • “Using the legislative surplus for the public interest through the transparent appropriation process.”
    • End gerrymandering by establishing an independent commission to redraw districts (via PA Constitutional Amendment)
    • Withhold officials’ pay if they do not have a budget by deadline
    • Eliminate “Walking Around Money” (money legislators have to give out to various groups)
    • Create a public internet database to increase transparency on state spending
    • End sole source contracts.
    • Strengthen the Inspector General to increase audits of government-funded programs
    • “Expand the pipeline for political leadership by reaching beyond the normal pathways to power in the appointments that he makes to agency management positions, boards and commissions – which are often a stepping stone to future elected office and other leadership opportunities – and by consulting with stakeholder groups on strategies to increase participation.”
    • Raise the fine for violating the Right to Know “Sunshine Law” (access to government information) to $500.

–Economy and Jobs

  • Corbett
    • Create a wireless broadband infrastructure to foster innovation
    • Create “Discovered in PA-Developed in PA” — a public-private partnership among universities and the government that will aim to help “move new ideas from the lab to the marketplace”
    • Help entrepreneurs gain access to start-up funds and tax credits
    • Provide loan money to local lenders and economic development organizations that will lend it out to new companies so they can grow and create jobs
    • Work with universities to support new industries (such as green technology and information technology)
    • “Empower the Governor’s Action Team to further its marketing efforts by creating a targeted marketing program to grow job development in Pennsylvania” and to “coordinate across regions to make certain that Pennsylvania meets the needs of all jobs creators”
    • Support growth green technology that will make PA competitive on the green market and also help save money on energy
    • “Develop grants and incentives for investors”
    • Support transportation infrastructure
    • Support use of Pennsylvania’s natural resources (ex: Marcellus Shale), in addition to developing green tech
    • “Partner with entrepreneurs to serve water delivery and elimination needs while safeguarding the commonwealth’s environmental quality”
    • Maintain the phase-out of the Capital Stock and Franchise Tax that was begun in 2009
    • Reduce the Corporate Net Income Tax to 6.99% over six years
    • Remove the Net Operating Loss Cap
    • Repeal the Inheritance Tax
    • Reform property tax
    • Shift tax burden from PA companies to out-of-state firms that do not own PA assets, nor employ PA workers
    • Support a Research and Development Tax Credit
    • Implement a Tradable Net Operating Loss (TNOL) that will allow start-up companies to sell their losses to other firms that want to reduce their tax liability (capped at $20 million)
    • Empower the Revenue Secretary to investigate and fight tax fraud
    • Streamline the tax dispute process
    • “Reinstitute the “Money Back Guarantee” program in DEP and other regulatory agencies to ensure that permits are reviewed and decisions are made in a timely manner.”
    • Review the effectiveness of regulations
    • “Adopt uniform administration of programs and regulatory consistency”
    • Reduce paperwork by requiring all state agencies to clear the addition of new forms and paperwork with the Governor’s office first
    • Pass the “Fair Share Act” to stop people in lawsuits from paying “100 percent of damages despite having had only a minor role in an incident that generated the lawsuit”
    • “Require plaintiffs to obtain verification from a licensed professional that a product is defective and has caused injury before the start of a product liability action”
    • Protect retailers who unknowingly sell a defective product
    • “Broad-based legislation that prohibits filing litigation in jurisdictions that have little or no relation to the defendant or the act giving rise to the cause of action”
    • Support a future workforce through better education today (more detail in education section)
  • Onorato
    • Keep property taxes low
    • Reduce Corporate Net Income Tax to 7.99%
    • Eliminate the cap on net operating losses for the Corporate Net Income Tax
    • Limit the amount electric rates can increase “over a 3-year phase-in period following the end of caps in any region of the state”
    • Improve infrastructure
    • “Upgrade the state’s “Investment Tracker” Internet database so that the public can easily access information about actual job creation, wages and benefits; industry sectors; and location… for all economic development investments”
    • Fund Small Business Development Centers
    • Foreclosure prevention and supporting the Pennsylvania Homeowners’ Emergency Mortgage Assistance Program
    • Historic preservation tax credit
    • “Expand the Pennsylvania Technical Assistance Program, known as PennTAP, which hires experienced industry experts to work as business coaches with interested companies”
    • Increase venture capital in emerging markets
    • “Temporary tax rebate program for businesses that hire unemployed workers or new entrants to the labor force”
    • “Pennsylvania Community College Coordinating Board to strengthen the formal bonds of the Commonwealth’s 14 community colleges”
    • Support adult education initiatives like earning college credits through applied learning and ensuring access to college grants
    • State Earned Income Tax Credit

– Education

  • Corbett
    • Raise the amount for the “Educational Improvement Tax Credit“
    • Increase funding for community college
    • “Work with the Department of Education and guidance counselors from across the state to develop a program to actively recruit high school students into identified priority career paths”
    • Supports Adult Basic and Literacy Education
    • Supports school choice — “so that when a student pursues different learning opportunities, the funding moves along with them”
    • “Statewide charter school board [to] establish a uniform application, review and decision-making process for charter schools”
    • Support dual enrollment by having funding follow the individual
    • “Authorize 25 Innovation Schools statewide”
    • Evaluate teachers based on student achievement
    • Introduce a system for rating schools “based on student performance on state assessments and other objective measures of student achievement, including proficiency rates, learning gains, closing achievement gaps, graduation rates, accelerated coursework and college and workforce readiness.”
    • Broaden the list of prior offenses that prevents people from teaching
  • Onorato
    • Hold charter schools to stricter academic and financial standards
    • Supports school vouchers for low income families in failing schools.
    • Support the “Educational Improvement Tax Credit“
    • Expand the “Pre-Kindergarten Counts” program to provide access to quality Pre-K education
    • Create a statewide “After School Coordinating Council” to “provide support for extracurricular activities and after- school programs”
    • “Promote the use of available state resources to fund courses like art, music and foreign languages”
    • Appoint an official responsible for ensuring schools meet safety standards
    • “Improving state laws on school safety reporting and ensuring that the information school districts submit is accurate”
    • Close achievement gap
    • Design teacher preparation programs
    • Prevent dropouts and re-engage those who have dropped out of school
    • Increase federal research grants
    • Provide capital funding for colleges
    • Increase Keystone Innovation Zone starter kits
    • Research and Development tax credit
    • Increase tuition grant money
    • Cut the size of the Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency (PHEAA) board to 11 members to save money
    • Ban PHEAA employee bonuses
    • “Create affordable satellite community college campuses in rural and other under- served areas”
    • “Seek foundation and private funds and work with the Department of Revenue, tax preparation firms and other partners so that Pennsylvania becomes the first state in the nation where, while preserving personal information security, as much of the FAFSA as possible is automatically filled out for families that give their permission”

– Energy and the Environment

  • Corbett
    • “Create an Infrastructure Improvement Tax Credit to enable eligible infrastructure businesses to obtain a match for investments spent on infrastructure investments”
    • Update infrastructure — support smart meters and smart grids
    • Promote coal-to-liquids (CTL) and gas-to-liquids (GTL) technologies
    • Biodiesel Blenders Tax Credit to support the biodiesel industry
    • Support nuclear energy
    • Develop the Marcellus Shale
    • “Create the Marcellus Shale Science Advisory Board within DEP to help identify the best available and practical water recycling and treatment technologies to protect ground and surface waters”
    • Support Clean Coal Technologies
    • Pass an Electricity Consumers’ Bill of Rights
    • “Executive Order directing DEP to create a “Permit Decision Guarantee Program” to ensure timely permit decisions based on clear deadlines for each permit issued by the agency”
    • “Executive Order to designate a senior advisor within the Governor’s office to serve as the state Energy Executive, who will be charged with coordinating an overall state energy policy, utilizing expertise within the many agencies of state government that impact energy policy.”
    • “Program to enlist retired DEP senior managers, who have vast experience and knowledge in implementing DEP’s programs, to voluntarily mentor future DEP managers through a management trainee program”
  • Onorato
    • Invest in green companies
    • Develop Marcellus Shale
    • Impact Tax on natural gas companies extract from the Marcellus Shale
    • Using the revenue from this tax to reverse cuts to the DEP and invest in communities around the Marcellus Shale
    • “Increase in the amount of renewable energy – including solar and wind power – that is required in the state’s Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards”
    • “Renew the Pennsylvania Sunshine Program so that companies and homeowners can continue to count on rebates to make solar projects feasible by assisting with the up-front costs”
    • Increase federal research grants
    • Launch “PA Saves” program that would allow people and businesses to “borrow to cover the up-front costs of Green upgrades, and pay back over a number of years through their municipal or utility bill”
    • New state buildings must meet green standards
    • Reduce energy use in state buildings 15%
    • Increase the use of green energy
    • Shift the state’s vehicle fleet to alternative energy fuels
    • “Expand the use of the Guaranteed Energy Savings Act program and of Energy Savings Contracts in order to encourage energy efficient upgrades in public buildings, and he will increase technical assistance so that local officials have the tools they need to make informed, cost-effective decisions”
    • Limit the amount electric rates can increase “over a 3-year phase-in period following the end of caps in any region of the state”
    • “Growing Greener 3“
    • Improve PA’s water infrastructure
    • “Increase the state’s reimbursement rate for schools that buy fresh local farm goods in their foodshed region as part of their breakfast and lunch programs.”

– Transportation

  • Corbett
    • “Bipartisan transportation funding workgroup – building on the work of previous efforts to assess the fairness and efficacy of the current funding mechanisms and pursue aligning revenue sources to desired public goods”
    • Build and maintain infrastructure
    • Help alleviate transportation congestion
    • “Maximize user fees and ensure their fair collection”
    • “Funding strategy to replace the gas tax over time and pursue a feasibility study and a pilot of potential programs”
    • Deepen the Delaware River to aid in international trade
    • “Improve our intermodal system to carry goods and services to and from the ports”
  • Onorato
    • Invest in and maintain transportation infrastructure

– Civil Rights

  • Corbett
    • Opposes adding sexual orientation to anti-discrimination laws
    • Supports a constitutional ban on gay marriage.
  • Onorato
    • “Add sexual orientation, gender identity, gender, ancestry and physical and mental disability to Pennsylvania’s hate crimes law”
    • Supports civil unions and domestic partnerships
    • Does not support a constitutional ban on gay marriage

– Agriculture

  • Corbett (I cannot find Corbett’s stance on Agriculture)
  • Onorato
    • Protect farmers from property tax increases
    • Grants and loans for farmers to invest in equipment
    • Invest in agricultural research
    • “Create a single integrated Digital Health Department to give consumers access to food safety reports under the jurisdiction of the state as well as county and local governments”
    • “Increase funding for the State Food Purchase Program, which provides direct aid in purchasing food to 1,800 food banks, soup kitchens and supporting agencies”
    • “Restore the Neighborhood Assistance Tax Credit, which many farmers use to make contributions to food banks”
    • Increase reimbursement for schools that buy fresh local foods

– Crime and Gun Rights

  • Corbett
    • Supports the death penalty
    • Does not support restrictive gun laws
  • Onorato
    • Preserve sportsmen’s gun rights, but be open to enacting “common sense” gun laws (see his stances in this section below)
    • Supports requiring people to report lost or stolen guns
    • Supports the death penalty
    • “Support continued use of the Pennsylvania Justice Network, or JNET, to securely share information among law enforcement stakeholders”
    • Require homes with minors to secure any firearms in the home
    • Public education to prevent “sexting”
    • “Add sexual orientation, gender identity, gender, ancestry and physical and mental disability to Pennsylvania’s hate crimes law”

– Health Care

  • Corbett
    • Tort reform
    • Opposes recent Health Insurance reform
  • Onorato (I cannot find Oronato’s stance on Health Care)