Readers of this blog will remember that the National Popular Vote campaign is striving to effectively eliminate the Electoral College by asking states to allocate their electors to the winner of the national popular vote, rather than the winner of state popular votes. Now, it looks like NPV’s long road to changing the Electoral College might encounter a sudden detour.

Some Pennsylvania Republicans have proposed an alternative: a congressional district system. One elector would be given to the winner of each district; the two remaining Pennsylvania electors would go to the winner of the state’s popular vote. Republicans would likely gain 11 or 12 electors in 2012. Needless to say, many Democrats are protesting the effort (see: here, here, and here).

Ultimately, Pennsylvania must decide for itself what to do. But there are several pros and cons to consider.

This piece was originally posted on National Review Online. Please click here for the rest of the post.

Pennsylvania Republicans want to change the state’s method of awarding presidential electors: Instead of a winner-take-all system, they propose to award electors based on congressional district.  http://bit.ly/qp1z6S

One of the great strengths of the current system is the great discretion given to state legislatures in picking a manner of elector allocation. If Pennsylvania legislators deem this method to be in their interest, then they should go for it. The rest of the states retain their ability to choose a different method, as dictated by the needs of their states.

Importantly, this proposal differs from the NPV plan recently adopted by California and other states (http://bit.ly/oMZLCb). NPV purports to rely on the states’ discretion to choose electors; in reality, it would rob most states of their ability to have any voice in choosing a presidential election system for this country.

More about Pennsylvania’s effort appears here: http://on.fb.me/pfsTL7

Originally posted on Tara’s Facebook page at http://on.fb.me/nemfNs

The balance of power between state and national governments was one of the most contentious issues for the American Founders.

The states were important historically, but also as a way to keep government close to the people and to divide government power into as many hands as practical in order to preserve liberty.

At the Constitutional Convention small states wanted every state to have an equal voice in the national government. Large states desired just the opposite—representation based on population would give them more power.

It was a compromise that created the U.S. Congress, where states are represented equally in the Senate but according to population in the House. That compromise not only broke the deadlock that threatened to derail the Constitution—it became the foundation for the unique American system of Federalism.

The national government was set up to provide national defense, manage foreign trade, and referee disputes between the states—in short, to provide the states with safety and commerce similar to the way the British Empire did for the 13 original colonies. The states were left to manage their internal affairs and to compete with one another; thus the states are sometimes referred to as our “fifty laboratories of democracy.”

Federalism fosters diversity by allowing groups of people in different states to manage their affairs differently, to innovate or remain the same, to address local needs. And by keeping government local, dividing it up, and making it compete, Federalism protects freedom.

The American system of states is not just unique—it has been uniquely successful. Federalism is an American invention worth preserving.