Pennsylvania Republicans are at it again.

Just a few short months ago they were desperately trying every which way to put in place a voter identification law in time for the 2012 presidential election.

The law was supposed to "allow Gov. (Mitt) Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania ..." according to House Majority Leader Mike Turzai.

"... Done," he infamously bragged to a Republican State Committee last summer.

Not so much.

A judge put the kibosh on the plan a month before the election, deciding the state hadn't done enough to ensure voters wouldn't be disenfranchised -- which Democrats argued was the whole point of the law, and which Turzai essentially confirmed.

It was only a temporary injunction, giving the state more time to ensure every registered voter had the proper identification. The judge said the law could take effect this year.

The GOP-controlled Legislature and Republican Gov. Tom Corbett had argued the ID law was necessary to protect the integrity of elections, although the state couldn't produce a single example of in-person voter fraud, the only kind that would be prevented by the law.

Interestingly, the Republicans and administration aren't as concerned about the integrity of the upcoming primary election, agreeing not to seek the implementation of the law while civil rights groups continue to fight it in court.

What's different from last year, when they fought tooth and nail to put voter ID in place?

It's not a presidential election. Those are the ones the state GOP can't seem to deliver, at least not since 1988.

Rather than changing its message -- as some Republicans across the country are urging after another national failure -- the state party still seems to think it's better to change the rules.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch Pileggi, R-Delaware County, recently introduced a bill to replace the current "winner-take-all" system of awarding electoral votes with a system that allocates electoral votes proportionately.

It's a ploy being considered by Republicans in several other swing states, and one endorsed by GOP National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus after President Barack Obama's re-election.

"I think it's something that a lot of states that have been consistently blue that are fully controlled red ought to be looking at," he said last month.

And the consistently red states? They presumably would continue allocating all of their electoral votes to the winner, meaning the only effect of changes like Pileggi is suggesting would be to siphon electoral votes from Democratic candidates.

It's a shameless attempt to rig the system, but better than the one Pileggi floated last year. That one would have allocated electoral votes based on our congressional districts -- our heavily gerrymandered congressional districts.

That idea went nowhere, and we hope this proposal fares just as well.

Maybe if Republicans spent as much time working on their brand, a majority of Pennsylvanians might actually want to buy it.