BY Dick Morris
WE.CONNECT.DOTS: How do we tell citizens their vote at Tuesday’s Pennsylvania primary is important, especially for legislative races?
Most of you will not have a choice – the reason you vote – in either the primary or general. Incumbents make it near impossible for challengers without a bag of cash.
General elections held in even-numbered years in this state always include 18 Congress seats, 203 state House districts and half of the 50 PA Senate Districts are on the ballot. Most have only one candidate or an incumbent versus an underfinanced, underwhelmed challenger. As the percentage of voters who actually vote declines, mainstream media expends less print or air time on the races.
Even the League of Women Voters have lost impact, holding candidate events that are subject to incumbent demands on format, location and timing and feature questions about non-controversial issues. The “faithful” comprise the audiences. The event is rarely broadcast. If the questions asked of the candidates do have some bite, answers skirt the issue or winners provide the proper scripted answer, then go back to the Capitol to vote special interests.
Only challengers raise issues, usually at poorly attended events. Incumbents and mainstream media shy from issues. So long as incumbents refuse to answer, media ignores – fearful of being perceived as “not fair and balanced.” The incumbents prey on that media fear.
John Finnerty, CNHI Harrisburg correspondent, wrote this past weekend “more than a third of Pennsylvania’s state representatives spend thousands of dollars in government money to stage senior expos, veterans’ dinners and other community events.”
Health expos take the cake. Legislators browbeat provider agencies, dependent on the same lawmakers for help with grants and regulations. Legislators expect these players to not only take booths but provide handouts and door prizes that will attract crowds. Many of the events target senior citizens.
Often the media covers these events, the same media that fails to ask lawmakers their opinions on budgets, taxes or programs. Media attention to politicians has revolved almost 180 degrees since Watergate. After the Nixon crisis, every reporter wanted to win the next Pulitzer with an expose on government corruption.
The Pulitzers did not materialize. Mainstream media found it harder to earn a buck. Coverage of governments and politicians dwindled.
Nationwide both political parties are guilty of using the technique to alter voting boundaries expressly to gain advantage for one party or even one candidate (incumbent).
As a result of the one-man, one-vote ruling by the US Supreme Court in the 1960s, the process is performed by state legislatures after every ten-year U.S. Census.
In states that are overwhelmingly ruled by one party, gerrymandering occurs. The majority party gets a “hog’s” share of the benefits, but the minority party gets some crumbs.
Pennsylvania is a good example. In 2012, President Obama carried the state over Mitt Romney, yet the same voters elected Republicans to 13 of the 18 Congressional seats. The state has a million plurality in Democratic voter registration; however, Republicans turn out in higher numbers, reducing the difference.
Republicans, in recent years, have made more effective use of its resources.
Taken together, however, this does not fully explain how the GOP won 13 of 18 Congressional seats in a heavy Democrat state. Gerrymanders drawing the maps packed an enormous number of Democrats into the five districts they decided to concede. This tactic made their 13 seats safer.
Bottom Line: “Why don’t we change the system?” you ask. The PA Constitution does not permit binding referendums like Ohio. State lawmakers must initiate the change before we vote.
