Typo (0.00 / 0)

"Barack Obama looks to be headed for 365-273..."

I think you mean 365-173...

---

by: Omark @ Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 15:27:21 PM UTC

yes (0.00 / 0)

---

by: tremayne @ Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 15:43:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm typically against electoral college tinkering (0.00 / 0)

but I did an analysis of the 2004 election with the following assumptions:

1. Congressional districts carried their own electoral votes
2. Popular vote carried the 2 additional electoral votes each state gets (representing the senators).  In about 8 or 9 cases, these two votes broke a tie between Kerry and Bush or overrode a narrow win (i.e., Bush or Kerry carried more districts but the popular vote actually favored the other candidate).  Out of 400+ districts, that's a very good reflection of the popular vote that in only a handful of cases did it the popular vote get underrepresented.

That analysis showed a much wider Bush margin than did the actual electoral vote outcome.  I would love to see what would happen in the case of the 2008 election.

QT

Visit the Obama Project

WindOnWater.net

---

by: QueenTiye @ Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 16:04:18 PM UTC

one problem with this approach (4.00 / 1)

is that it's subject to gerrymandering. Do we really want sitting state legislatures to have that sort of influence on the outcome of the presidential vote? I say not.

---

by: mpcloat @ Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 16:57:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It advantages large states (0.00 / 0)

The electoral college system in its current form gives large states influence disproportionate to their population.

Why?  Because of winner take all.  If you broke California up into four states, let's say, McCain would have taken one and Obama three.  Instead of one state with 55 EVs, you'd have three states with 15 EVs and one state with 16.  Total is 46 for Obama and 15 for McCain, a margin for Obama of 31 instead of 55.

---

by: BRoss @ Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 16:22:47 PM UTC

this is right but wrong (4.00 / 1)

First, it would apply to all states, not just California.

Second, if you broke them all up into small enough chunks then you'd just end up with a final split of:

53% Obama
46% McCain

i.e. the popular vote.

---

by: tremayne @ Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 16:35:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Large states already have an advantage (0.00 / 0)

If it were just a popular vote, large states/population centers would dominate all debates.

But, as I said, breaking it up by congressional district further reduces the power of large states and amplifies the voice of small communities.  

It would certainly reshape our politics - I have a sense that a electoral college by district allocation would have actually narrowed Obama's win, for the very reasons you state - that some of California's electoral votes in CA would have gone to McCain.  Who would the republican and democratic parties be if they had to compete on that kind of playing field?

QT

Visit the Obama Project

WindOnWater.net

---

by: QueenTiye @ Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 16:38:45 PM UTC

Breaking them up (0.00 / 0)

The advantage for big states in the electoral college balances (maybe not entirely) the advantage for small states in the Senate.

If you simply break up big states, you still have big cities where the election is not competitive.  The real advantage to going to a straight popular vote, in my opinion, is that you get a political mobilization around the election everywhere, and not just in battle ground states.

---

by: BRoss @ Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 16:42:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Another interesting electoral college quirk this year (0.00 / 0)

If Obama had performed 9% worse in every state, he would have lost the national popular vote by 2%.  However, he would have still won ever Kerry state, plus Iowa, New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado, good for 278 electoral votes.  Here's the kicker: he could have even lost Colorado and would have won it in the House due to the 269-269 result.  Yeah it would have been disastrous to Obama's first term, but the fact is we've improved our standing in the electoral college to the point that we actually have the advantage now, unlike 2000, when Bush was able to pull the EC majority while losing the popular vote by 0.5%.  However, Kerry had the ability to do the same thing, if he had performed 2% better nationwide he would have won Ohio and the election, while still coming up 0.5% short in popular vote.

---

by: Skaje @ Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 19:51:27 PM UTC

the National Popular Vote bill (0.00 / 0)

The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. In 2004 two-thirds of the visits and money were focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money went to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people were merely spectators to the presidential election.  Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule enacted by 48 states, under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.

Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections.

In the past six decades, there have been six presidential elections in which a shift of a relatively small number of votes in one or two states would have elected (and, of course, in 2000, did elect) a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Every vote would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.

The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes-that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

The bill is currently endorsed by 1,181 state legislators - 439 sponsors (in 47 states) and an additional 742 legislators who have cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 21 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes - 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

See http://www.NationalPopularVote...

---

by: mvymvy @ Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 19:14:29 PM UTC