Skip to content
Sign up free
News

Pennsylvania Voters Short-Changed By County Commissioner Voting System

Pennsylvania Voters Short-Changed By County Commissioner Voting System

By Joe the Nerd Ferraro

2-minute read

The rallying cry in the 1770’s was “Taxation Without Representation”.  They fought a war over it and THEY won.  But we are still losing.

In Pennsylvania, many counties have a bizarre system to guarantee representation of a minority party.  The counties have 3 commissioners and have written the laws to stipulate all 3 cannot be from the same political party.  On the face of it that is fine and good.

However, in practice, this needs some tuning.  The reality is voters can only vote for 2 commissioners.

Even though there are 3 slots open, you can only vote for 2 people!

Since a party can only capture 2 of the 3 slots, the major parties only put up 2 candidates for the 3 slots.  The campaign becomes - ‘Vote for our team of two people to become the majority’.  If a major party put up 3 candidates you would have one of the candidates as an odd person out, siphoning votes from the other 2 major party candidates on the ticket.  Or worse, a team of 2 insiders would be working against their teammate even before facing the other party’s team.  As a party, it is just smarter to put 2 people up and not have a fight you do not need.

What appears to be a good thing might not...

What appears to be a good thing might not...

The issue is - somewhere along the way the general public lost the ability to vote for all 3 slots.  Maybe hyper-partisanship took over to say:

If we can’t run three people, why would we allow the public to vote for three people?  If the public were to use that other vote they would start to look at the other party as a viable place to send that vote.  We would be allowing the other party into the system.

The general election becomes a game of musical chairs where 4 candidates vie for 3 slots.  This is where one of the parties perceives that they are in a weaker position and one of the candidates from the ‘weaker’ party begins to ‘cut’ their running mate by making a deal with the ‘stronger’ party.

It becomes a mess.

A solution to hyper-partisanship in this case may be to allow voters to cast a ballot for each open seat.

Keep the parties sending up two people for their tickets, but allow voters to make a selection for EACH seat open.  That third vote floating out there could go to the other major party candidate or to an alternate party candidate.  Alternatively, the voter could bullet vote their party’s slate (only cast 2 of their three ballots).

The choice of the voter would be made by the person casting it – and not restricted by a warping of party politics.

Tags: News

Adhere to the IVN etiquette

By posting a comment, you agree to adhere to our etiquette rules: No partisan attacks, no personal attacks, substantiate your sources, no self-promotion.

Get IVN’s Free Weekly Newsletter:Get IVN’s Free Newsletter

Get IVN’s Free Weekly Newsletter:Get IVN’s Free Newsletter

Nonpartisan Issues. Diverse Perspectives.

Check your inbox and click the link to confirm.

Republish this article

Republishing guidelines

Republish IVN articles for free. Independent Voter News articles may be republished online or in print under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0 license, on these terms:

  1. Credit the author and IVN. Keep the byline ("By Author Name, Independent Voter News") and the attribution note at the end, which links to the original.
  2. Keep the meaning. You may update time and place references and apply your house style. You may trim for length, as long as the cuts don't change the meaning or misrepresent the author. Keep the headline. Mark any additions as your own (for example "Additional reporting by ...").
  3. Translations are welcome. Translate faithfully, add "Translated from English by [your outlet]", and tell us at editor@ivn.us.
  4. Keep the links, including the link to the original article.
  5. Keep the tracking image. The HTML includes a 1-pixel image that counts readers on your page. It collects no personal information.
  6. Photos and illustrations. Images credited to IVN may be used with this article only. Images credited to others (AP, Getty, Unsplash, Wikimedia and so on) stay under their owners' terms. Secure the rights or switch "Include images" off.
  7. Don't sell it. You can't sell our articles or sell ads specifically against them. Your normal site advertising is fine.
  8. No implied endorsement. Don't suggest that IVN or the author endorses you, your candidates or your causes, or that donations to you support IVN.
  9. Keep labels. Opinion or analysis pieces keep that label.
  10. Point search engines to the original. Set the canonical URL of your copy to the original IVN article (the HTML we give you includes the tag).
  11. No bulk or automated republishing, and don't submit our articles to aggregators (Apple News, Google News, MSN) as your own.
  12. Corrections and removals. Update your copy when we correct it, and remove it promptly if we ask. We'll contact you at the email you give us.
  13. Questions or print republication: editor@ivn.us.

IVN staff: fill in who you're inviting above, then create the invite.

Preparing the article

Pennsylvania Voters Short-Changed By County Commissioner Voting System

Choose a format
  • HTML
  • Email HTML
  • Markdown
  • Formatted (.docx)
  • Plain text
  • WordPress blocks
  • PDF
Choose a platform

Photos credited to others need their owners' permission.

To for

Republishing somewhere else? Questions? editor@ivn.us