Electoral College Shenanigans: now NC, next CA?

by: I Voted for Kodos

Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 20:15


This weekend, Chris Bowers posted on North Carolina's flirtation with shaking up the electoral college.  The gist of it is that they want to stop giving all their electoral votes to the statewide winner and start apportioning them by Congressional district.  I was kind of ambivalent about this idea until I gave it some more thought.  And by "gave it some more thought", I mean read Hendrick Hertzberg.  Because it turns out California is going to have to consider it now too.
I Voted for Kodos :: Electoral College Shenanigans: now NC, next CA?
As Hertzberg also points out, the two states that currently have this system, Nebraska and Maine, are small and homogenous.  Hence, their decision didn't have much impact on the electoral map.  But the whole issue really comes into perspective for me when a giant like California enters the picture.

Suddenly I see how this proportional allotment thing is really just treading water at best, or a horrible unbalancing force at worst.  Think about it: California gives up approximately 19 of its 55 votes to Republicans, but other big states, like Texas, don't respond by parsing their electoral votes to Democrats' benefit.  This is where unilateral disarmament could literally ruin our whole electoral system.

So why take the risk in any state?  The absolute best-case scenario is if every state goes with this plan, which would leave us with essentially the same amount of disputed territory, just spread out more.  Hertzberg:

Imagine, as a thought experiment, that all the states were to adopt this "reform" at once. Electoral votes would still be winner take all, only by congressional district rather than by state. Instead of ten battleground states and forty spectator states, we'd have thirty-five battleground districts and four hundred spectator districts. The red-blue map would be more mottled, and in some states more people might get to see campaign commercials, because media markets usually take in more than one district. But congressional districts are as gerrymandered as human ingenuity and computer power can make them. The electoral-vote result in ninety per cent of the country would still be a foregone conclusion, no matter how close the race.

At this point, I have to return to the issue at the core of one of the debates in the comments of the original post: which plan is more democratic, and how much does it matter?  Hertzberg's implicit argument in this passage is for the national popular vote, at least over the proportional scheme.  And it makes perfect sense: the problem with the current set-up is that winner-take-all is not democratic.  And if it's not democratic on the state-wide level, why would it be democratic on the district level? 

To make it truly democratic, you'd have to keep parsing down the levels: from state to district, district to ward, ward to precinct...until finally you got down from precinct to person.  The logic is inescapable--national popular vote is the only solution.


Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Seriously, how much does it matter? (0.00 / 0)
The current electoral college set-up is quasi-democratic.  Does it matter if it gets slightly more democratic, as long as the result is substantially the same?

Yes we Kang

Well (0.00 / 0)
given that it probably hands every EC election to the Republican, it matters from a day-to-day standpoint quite a lot.

John McCain opposes the GI Bill.

[ Parent ]
Not Democratic (0.00 / 0)
It isn't democratic unless all states do it; right now you have two states that vote Demcoratic in presidential elections contemplating a system that will peel off electoral college votes that would go to the Democrats.  You don't have any states doing the same thing to peel off electoral college votes from the Republicans.  This is a one of those potential disasters that I hope the DNC is paying close attention to and coming up with a plan to stop. 

Failed idea (0.00 / 0)
The idea of splitting a state's electoral votes, usually by congressional district, is not new.  It occured in seven previous elections, none later than 1892.

Briefly, in 1796 (PA, MD, VA, NC), 1800 (PA, MD, NC), 1808 (NY, NC), 1812 (MD), 1824 (IL, DE, LA, NY), 1860 (NJ) and 1892 (OR, MI, ND, OH) the plan operated in at least some states.  Oregon, in 1892 was a fusion ticket with tthe Democrat getting 3 votes and the Populist one.

This is a failed idea and for good reason.  Nearly everyone considers themselves a resident of the US and secondarily of a state (in my case, NJ).  I don't have a primary identity as a resident of the 11th congressional district and neither do my neighbors.

On a practical level, Democratic votes tend to be more concentrated in cities while Republican votes have been spread out.  This idea is a partisan gamesmanship aimed at helping Republicans for the most part.


Also (0.00 / 0)
As has been pointed out in comments at Calitics and MyDD, the Constitution says that the legislature determines the manner in which the EVs are allocated.  This would not be action by the legislature and thus seemingly unconstitutional.

John McCain opposes the GI Bill.

[ Parent ]
Donate to Open Left









QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.


blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search