Open Left - Electoral college

Red California Death Watch

paulhogarth — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 15:17:46 GMT

In 2007, right-wing political operatives tried to place a measure on the June 2008 ballot that - if successful - would have awarded California's electoral votes by Congressional District. Democrats and progressives strongly opposed it, because everyone assumed it would give the G.O.P. presidential nominee an extra 19 votes. California is a deep blue state, but parts of Orange County and the Central Valley are still reliably Republican. New data from last November's election, however, suggests that "Red California" is becoming less and less relevant. Barack Obama carried eight Congressional Districts that had long voted for Republican presidential candidates, and John McCain came close to losing three more. All these districts are currently represented in Congress by Republicans, but a few incumbents came close last year to losing to Democratic challengers. It's only a matter of time before some of these districts will eventually flip. None of this is a surprise, however, because the state's Republican base is older, whiter and shrinking in size. But the rate of this change is quite staggering, which explains why Republicans in the state legislature have clung to the "two-thirds rule" for passing a budget. After all, it's the only reason they have any power left in the state.
Thanks to the work of bloggers at the Swing State Project, it is now possible to quickly check the results of the last presidential election by Congressional District, and compare it with 2000 and 2004. Congressional Quarterly even has a cool map that you can look at online. What it shows for the future of California Republicans is not pretty. None of us were surprised that Barack Obama won the Golden State by a 60-40 margin. But the bigger story here is that "Red California" has become far less Republican.

Take the 24th Congressional District, which includes Ventura County and inland parts of Santa Barbara County. The District is home to the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, the same town where an all-white jury voted in 1992 to acquit the cops who beat up Rodney King. Republican Elton Gallegy has been the Congressman there for 22 years, and he's never had to deal with a tough challenger. In fact, the lines were drawn to intentionally give him a safe seat. But Obama won the District by a three-point margin.

Or how about the 48th District in Orange County - which includes Irvine, Laguna Hills and the mansions of Newport Beach? George Bush carried the District by a 20-point margin in both elections, but Obama won it by over 2,600 votes. Republican Chris Cox represented the District for years, and when he stepped down in 2005 successfully passed it on to a GOP successor. Democrats tried in 2006 and 2008, but Congressman John Campbell has so far managed to ward them off. Now, Irvine City Councilwoman Betty Krom has thrown her hat in the ring - and her campaign kick-off featured Loretta Sanchez.

When you look at the map, the most obvious change is the 25th District - which hugs a huge section of the Nevada border and includes Death Valley, before heading south to include parts of northern Los Angeles County. The City of Palmdale, home of the late anti-gay bigot Pete Knight is in the District. It's always been a safe district for Republican candidates, but Obama managed to win it by a percentage point. Mormon Congressman Buck McKeon has had the seat since 1992, and has never had to worry about Democrats. That could change ...

But can a candidate like Obama give "coat-tails" for Democrats in Red California? Ask Dan Lungren and Ken Calvert, two Republican members of Congress. When Lungren - the GOP's losing candidate for Governor in 1998 - moved to the Sacramento suburbs to stage a political comeback, he decided to settle in a safe Republican district. Calvert has represented Riverside and Corona since 1992, and even survived a prostitution scandal early in his career to get re-elected - because the District at the time was so Republican.

For Lungren and Calvert, the state's demographics are catching up with them. Obama won both of their districts, and both of them came extremely close to losing their jobs in November - when spirited Democratic challengers took them on. Both districts have had an influx of suburban sprawl, and now the headache of foreclosures has hit their communities hard. We're seeing similar trends in Districts 26 in northern Los Angeles (Dave Dreier), 45 in Palm Springs (Mary Bono) and 50 in San Diego (Brian Bilbray.) Obama won all of these districts, and a strong Democratic challenger could benefit.

Granted, California still has Republican parts - and progressives were right to defeat the so-called Dirty Tricks Initiative to split up electoral votes by Congressional District. I have never liked the Electoral College's "winner-take-all" system - where a state awards all of its electoral votes to the plurality winner. But until every state splits up their votes to ensure that every minority (not just California Republicans) has a voice in picking our next President, it is unfair and undemocratic.

John McCain won 11 out of California's 53 Congressional Districts - which means that Republicans in the Golden State are still red, but not dead. But in three of them - George Radanovich's 19th in Fresno, Ed Royce's 40th in Orange County and Dana Rohrabacher's 46th in Palos Verdes - the margin was surprisingly close. As the party keeps pandering to its Southern base, it will drift into oblivion in California. And if a measure to abolish the "two-thirds rule" in the state legislature passes, it will mean the death of the California GOP.

Paul Hogarth is the Managing Editor of BeyondChron, San Francisco's Alternative Online Daily, where this piece was first published.

We Need an Entire Slate of Electoral Reform Amendments

Anthony de Jesus — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 23:28:40 GMT

Russ Feingold has announced plans to introduce a Constitutional amendment requiring special elections for Senate vacancies.
This is, obviously, a good idea. I think there is an opportunity here to use this as a spearhead to get several ideas into the mainstream about changing how we do in elections.

The highest-profile idea out there is the abolition of the Electoral College in favor of the popular vote. I don't see instant-runoff voting as something that has a chance of being adopted but it can be thrown out there, as well. I doubt getting rid of the Senate has a chance of happening though, so be realistic. Perhaps people would go for a non-partisan (post-partisan?) amendment for changing how we handle the drawing of Congressional districts. Maybe not proportional representation, but something that isn't an incumbent protection scheme.

One of my own ideas is to allow amendments to be ratified by referendum in 3/4 of states rather than by state legislatures or conventions.

Given how the recent Senate appointments have been covered heavily in the news, this would be a good opportunity for the progressive blogosphere to serve as a widely-dispersed open think tank and come up with ideas. What other changes to the constitution do you want to make?

In Defense of the Electoral College

danps — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 10:13:37 GMT

The Electoral College, when it is noticed at all, is usually dismissed as an anachronism at best and a foe of democracy at worst. But some of our current problems might be more manageable if we made more use of it, not less.

For more on pruning back executive power see Pruning Shears.

No Associated Press content was harmed in the writing of this post

Every four years there are rumblings about the Electoral College (EC) and calls to abolish it. Since doing so requires a Constitutional amendment the calls usually don't get very far; even in the best of times there always seem to be bigger fish to fry. Sometimes, though, the vagaries of the system are anything but trivial, as we were all reminded in 2000. The immediate and understandable reaction on the left was, why are we still stuck with this thing when it just put someone who lost the popular vote in the White House? It seemed to exist only to block the will of the people. But in 2004 a popular and electoral win led the president to characterize it not just as the popular preference for president, but an accountability moment that granted him political capital, which he in turn defined as comprehensive support for everything he wanted to do. Dana Nelson describes this understanding of the presidency on page 177 of "Bad For Democracy", citing Barney Frank's use of the political science term plebiscitary democracy: a system "wherein a leader is elected but once elected has almost all of the power."

Such a formulation is nothing less than a radical attempt to seize power from the citizenry (and can only be done if we acquiesce). We should expect, and be expected, to do more than cast a quadrennial ballot for president. We should be talking, persuading, agitating and advocating between elections for or against those policies that matter most to us. For better or worse Congress is the object of these efforts. Think about the big issues of the last few years - Social Security privatization, immigration reform, various FISA changes, the bailout - and they all received passionate response and intense lobbying efforts by Americans towards their Representatives and Senators. Even though not all succeeded, the fact is that is where people directed their energies.

Since that is where we have the best chance of affecting policy, transferring some authority there could easily make the government more responsive. For example, instead of having EC electors selected in a separate process just make everyone in Congress one (and let D.C. continue to use its current process to get its three). There are some noteworthy benefits to doing this. First, it would take away some power of the executive branch - which throughout our history has almost exclusively expanded. A vote by Congress for the president would make it much more difficult to assert an accountability moment, mandate, or otherwise claim near-total freedom of action. Second, the president would owe something to Congress. Heaven knows the last eight years in Congress have been an ongoing, catastrophic failure of courage in the face of presidential bullying. While no rules, legislation or other mechanisms can compel anyone to stand up to such tactics it certainly might help to stack the deck a little. If the "accountability moment" had been with Congress and not voters we might have seen much different behavior on both sides.

It also might mitigate one of the structural weaknesses in our theoretical model of checks and balances: The tendency of officials' parochial interests to trump institutional concerns. A nearly perfect example of that is on display at the very moment. We have just found out that the Federal Reserve and the Treasury have spent more money on the financial system in inflation-adjusted dollars than we did in World War II. How exactly the money is being spent and who in particular has benefited is basically a complete mystery. Bloomberg News - not, remember, a branch of the federal government - has filed a lawsuit to obtain details on where it has gone. Congress ought to be asking the same questions and could much more easily find out. But instead we have politicians squabbling about relatively small amounts based on how much their constituents depend on the domestic auto industry. The much larger executive overreach passes unnoticed.

It is important to not fly from crisis to crisis and to not always look for solutions to future problems by generalizing from the most recent one. But those of us on the left are in a position to argue from principle (and with great credibility) about scaling back the scope of the presidency now that a Democrat is about to enter the White House. In the last week Libby Spencer has exhorted her readers by post and in comments to not focus too much on Barack Obama. Instead we should focus on what we can do, and what we can convince or representatives in Congress to do. Such an ongoing and hands-on commitment might be more effective - and empowering - if the presidency receded somewhat from its overwhelming primacy in our political life.

Does the Electoral College System Underestimate Obama's Win?

tremayne — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 14:52:58 GMT

This question occurred to me as I looked at some previous presidential elections. Did you know, for instance, that the Nixon-Humphrey race was very close? It was, at least in the popular vote count: 31.8 million votes for Richard Nixon, 31.3 million for Hubert Humphrey. But Nixon won the electoral college in a blowout: 301 to 191. The native Californian won that state as well as other population centers such as Illinois and Ohio while losing Texas (oh how times have changed in 40 years). But he ran up the score on Humphrey by winning a bunch of small-population states that had more electors than they "deserved" if it was based on population alone.

Barack Obama looks to be headed for 365-~~273~~173 win in the electoral college assuming John McCain takes Missouri and Obama takes that Omaha elector. Does that margin fairly represent Obama's win? If, instead of giving a state the number of electors equal to their number of Senators plus House members, we apportion 538 electors based purely on current population what happens? I did this using 2007 state population figures and found the result would be this:

Obama 374, McCain 164

So the answer to the question in the title of the post is "yes" but only a little. The reason is that in the current system both McCain and Obama win small states that are "over electored." For example, McCain wins WY, ND, SD, and AK which really deserve only one elector (by population) while Obama wins DC and Vermont which would be in the same category. McCain won more of these small population states but not enough to significantly alter the electoral outcome.

Sour Grapes In Nebraska

Daniel De Groot — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 23:00:00 GMT

So imagine you're a state that has given its electoral college votes to Republican candidates in every election except for the very biggest Democratic landslides, and has done so for 11 straight elections. But you have this very cute provision, whereby some of your state's electoral college votes can be peeled off, if the other party manages to win in any of the state's federal congressional districts. Now of course, this has never happened since the rule was put in place, so it was just a bit of cute trivia for election geeks to blather about, but no one expected it to actually happen.

Then one election, it actually does. Now you're the State's dominant party, the Republican party. What do you do?

Why, end the system and go back to a winner-take-all, of course.

Nebraska GOP chairman Mark Quandahl said the Republican Party wants to "put Nebraska in line with the 48 other states in the union that are allocating their electoral votes the correct way."
He said they'll urge a state senator to introduce a bill to repeal the unusual arrangement next year, but he objects to suggestions his party is being a bad sport.
"Pshaw. That isn't true," Quandahl said.

Strong rebuttal there, Mr Quandahl.

David Kramer with the Republican Party says it has nothing to do with the increased number of registered democrats. "I think it's a question of fairness." Kramer says the system only works for the democrats. Kramer says, "If it's good for us here than it ought to be good for us in California, in New York and those places where democrats would fight tooth and nail to make sure this kind of proposal never ever got passed." 80-year-old Helen Houston, who lives next door to De Mott, agrees.
Registered republican, Helen Houston says, "I think it has sparked a lot of energy but I still feel we need to be the same as the rest of the country." Republicans have tried to change the system in the past in 19-95 and 97, both times former Democratic Governor Ben Nelson vetoed it.
The chances the voter system will change next year depend on Nebraska's legislature. With new senators coming in, it depends which party gets the majority of the seats.

The Obama campaign mounted an unprecedented field operation in Omaha, registering new voters and prompting a record outpouring of early voters.

Last one:

Obama ignored Nebraska's history this year, sending 16 paid staffers into the 2nd District and opening three offices in Omaha.

It seems perfectly clear the law accomplished its intended purpose. A major party candidate invested time and resources into your state, and managed to swipe an electoral college vote, making it even more likely both parties would invest in Nebraska in 2012.

I guess in the NE GOP's defence, they have been trying to get rid of this law for some time. Though the current Republican governor has been in office since 2005, and the "non-partisan" (ha!) State unicameral state legislature sat at 31R-15D-3I before the election, so I'm not sure what was stopping them.

Speaking of the state leg, it appears that the Democrats have gained a couple, bringing them to 17 seats with 2 still undecided. According to the legislative rules, 1/3 of the legislature can block cloture on bills (the unicameral legislature was originally the Senate so it kept senate-like rules). A caveat though from that New Nebraska Network link:

On many state and local issues, the "D" or "R" next to a legislators' name does not and should not have a damn thing to do with how they vote and represent their constituents' best interests. Recognizing that, 17 Democratic votes wouldn't mean a whole lot because there is bound to be too wide a range of interests within such a group - especially on issues that divide urban and rural Nebraska.

So I gather there are a few mini-Nelsons within the NE leg Dems, who will regularly vote with the GOP.

Anyway, looks like Nebraska will return to national electoral irrelevance in time to prevent 2012's Republican candidate from having to invest any effort into the state.

At a National Level, this is an opening to talk about real electoral college reform via the National Popular Vote project. If Republicans want to whine that California wasn't willing to go first in surrendering a massive electoral Democratic advantage, then they should get on board. Nebraska doesn't even have a legislator willing to introduce a PV bill. It polls really well even in red states and leaves Republicans in the uncomfortable position of fighting against democracy. Seems like a winner, NE-Dems.

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

Matt H — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 01:55:48 GMT

A lot of useful, interesting ideas have been expressed here and elsewhere regarding Sara Palin and this race. It is often times difficult to keep our biases at bay in such matters. As a lifelong Democrat and political junkie, my biases are strong. As a budding social scientist (Ph.D. candidate in International Studies), my desire to keep my biases out of it are also strong. And as a 43-year-old American, my desire (if not ability) to use the Force to avoid going over to the Dark Side, also strong, it is.

So this is my attempt to divide this campaign into the Good (optimism), the Bad (Pessimism) and the Ugly (things we don't want to admit to.)

The Good:

The fundamentals remain strong. Democrats are popular; Republicans are loathed. The current administration is loathed. 80% of Americans believe we're on the wrong track. The Obama campaign is far more robust, effective, and widespread than the McCain campaign. Enthusiasm is not currently accurately measurable and likely favors Obama, despite the addition of Palin to the ticket. The MSM has recently begun to get after McCain/Palin for their Lovitzian patholigical lying. For once, they are calling a spade a spade. And nobody thinks Palin is remotely qualified -- those that are lying about it are uncharacteristically being publicly called on it on a daily basis. There is also the potential for increased Democratic turnout due to underrepresentation of cellphone-only voters in polling. Finally, tactically, the Obama campaign has begun to turn up the heat over the last few days to a week. We could start seeing some impressive results in the polls.

The Bad:
There is now a floor to Republican awfulness. The choice of Palin as VP runningmate has energized the base and given McCain a pretty solid bump/bounce in the polls. An Obama rout may no longer be possible -- we may be back to the guaranteed 44% Republican vote. There are some significant number of voters -- be they White Democrats or Hillary Holdouts or just plain racists -- who will not under pretty much any circumstances vote for Obama. Palin has helped McCain in the Mountain West in states like Montana, SD, ND, and, of course Alaska and in the South. The electoral expansionary revolution, which so many of us have argued for, myself included, looks much less doable.

The Ugly:
Things that could be true that folks around here don't want to admit.. First, we really could lose, for any number of reasons. Second, Americans generally might be willing to stick with McCain because they view his current pandering as just that -- if/when he wins the election, he will drop the pandering for votes and behave himself like the maverick he really is. Third, Palin may really be, in some sense of the term, a feminist icon. Not that she should be but that enough women will see her that way, for whatever reason, and decide that that's enough. And I would argue, that in some very, very limited sense of the term, she is a feminist. As Joan Walsh of Salon has put it, she knows how to throw and take a punch. She unapologetically seeks power, something which male politicians are rarely questioned about. This is certainly not my broad interpretation -- everything considered, this woman sets back most feminist causes by years or decades (if not centuries.) But if this race stays way too close for comfort over the next few weeks, this may be as good as place as any to start in our search for explanations.

Popular v. Electoral College Margins

Paul Rosenberg — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 21:27:50 GMT

In my diary last weekend, "Swing State Clusters Tell Story of Potential 'Map-Changing' Obama Landslide", I pointed out how the punditalkcrazy has been utterly oblivious to the actual configuration of battleground states as revealed by state-level polling this year. Regardless of what the national polls say, there just doesn't seem to be much chance that, even at his best, McCain could win more than one or two Kerry states, while Obama could easily pick off half a dozen, even a dozen Bush states. As I argued in my previous diary today, "Electoral Map Typology", it is quite likely the map will change in this election for many elections to come.

This week, Mark Nickolas, Managing Editor of Political Base, made a somewhat related argument, that the media doesn't really appreciate how siginificant a seemingly "small" five point lead is when you look at the electoral college. His post, "Popular Vote v. Electoral College (Why The Media Badly Needs A History Lesson)"--republished at Huffington Post here--is refreshingly blunt:

Despite Obama's amazingly consistent lead throughout the general election, the talking heads on cable television returned to their incessant bloviating over whether Obama should be leading by more than just five points over McCain. It's really painful to watch these fools who don't bother to pay attention to history to understand how a five-point popular vote victory translates when it comes to the only metric that matters -- the Electoral College. (Hint: it translates to a landslide)

And his chart of popular vote margins to EV margins is pretty straightforward:

Nickolas also produced a table of the underlying figures, which I've resorted according to popular vote margins:

If we take this table, slice it up, and match the numbers with the electoral college maps, then whole story becomes a bit more vivid. It also throws further light on my earlier discussions of electoral maps over the last century, here and here.

Election Margins -0.5% to 2.4%

The first slice contains two slices within it - first from -0.5% to 0.7%, second from 2.1% to 2.4%. The reason for putting these two slices together will become obvious from the associated maps:

There are obviously two distinct slices here. 1960, 1968 and 2000 are truly close, close elections. So close that loser "won" in 2000. In contrast to these elections, margins of 2 points or more seem quite comfortable-especially after the fact. But if we look at both slices together, we find that we have all the electoral maps in two separate groups that I described in my last diary, "Electoral Map Typology". Bush's two elections comprise their own group, which is an offshoot from the main sequence of Republican-dominated maps. The main sequence moves from Republican landslides with a sprinkling of Democratic states (1972, 1980, 1984, 1988) to Republican dominance over a Southern-centered Democratic Party, with the Democratic base growing stronger until it finally becomes a majority. Bush's two victories form an offshoot that's unique, since it centers on the South, previously the Democrats' base.

The other three maps here are from another anomalous group-at least it was anomalous at one time. There really was no precedent for Kennedy's 1960 victory map, but Humphrey in 1968 and Carter in 1976 both came up with geographically quite similar maps, and Clinton latter consolidated the patchwork into his own distinct map type, winning a very similar pattern of states in both his elections. So what we have here, in these two slices of close and super-close elections, are distinctive configurations that first appeared in 1960 and 2000. The first recurred again in 1968 and 1976, the second recurred in 2004. That's three of five elections from 1960 to 1976 (interspersed with two landslides, one Democratic, one Republican) and two of two elections from 2000 to 2004.

These are what truly close elections look like, and it certainly is conceivable that John McCain could win such an election this year, with a map very similar to 2000 and 20004. But right now, that is not what the polls are showing. They are showing something closer to an Obama victory that generally falls into the next category.

Election Margins 4.5% to 8.5%

Here, again we combine two slices to give a little bigger picture. Here we see one pattern that crosses over the divide-Clinton's two geographically similar vicotries. But we also see significant differences in crossing the divide.

The first slice, Truman's 1948 election and Clinton's 1992 election, is the one that Nickolas cites as most directly comparable. The dominance of tighter polls from Gallup and Rasmussen may make his ballpark of a 5-point Obama lead seem a bit high, but with Obama putting states like Virginia, North Carolina, Indiana, Missouri, North Dakota and Montana into play, there does seem to be good reason to see the maps for these two quite different elections as broadly indicative of what we might see come November. These are very comfortable Electoral College victories-landslides, if you will. But they are not geographical landslides, landslides that isolate the states supporting the losing candidates into a few small islands of support.

Crossing over into the second slive, we start to see signs of geographical, as well as Electoral College landslides. In 1988, Democrat states were limited to four small enclaves-one of them a single small state. In 1944, the Great Plains were the only geographical region that the Republicans held. In 1996, the Republicans carried a significant number of states, but they were divided from each other into three blocks-and again, one of those was just a single small state. The divide between Truman's 1948 victory and Roosevelt's 1944 victory is where I earlier drew the line over what I was willing to call a landslide. That divide shows up here as well, and it seems well justified in terms of geography, and the electoral vote margin. However, there is no doubt that Truman's victory was a very solid one.

In contrast, from here on out, we're only talking further degrees of landslide, and the elections fall fairly neatly into three clumped groups.

Election Margins 9.7% to 10.9%

Empirically, this is the minimal level for an unambiguous landslide.

The three elections in this slice are widely separate in time and flavor. Roosevelt's 1940 margin was a decline from even more overwhelming margins in the two previous elections. Eisenhower and Reagan were both elected in repudiation of their predecessors' difficulties, particularly with foreign affairs.

Election Margins 15.4% to 18.2%

This is where crushing landslides begin.

Two of these elections were re-elections, and two were first term. Interestingly, the first term landslides were back-to-back-Hoover in 1928, FDR in 1932.

Election Margins 22.6% to 24.3%

These landslides only exist to make those above look puny.

Conclusion

Now, no one's saying this is going to be 1936. But it could be something close to 1932 or 1956 if McCain has a total meltdown at the debates. But even without that, something in the 4.5-8.5% range is quite doable, and would result in an Electoral College landslide of something like 200 votes. Right now, a total blowout for Obama is just as likely as a squeaker victory for McCain-if not moreso.

Do The Republicans Have An Advantage in the Electoral College?

arbitrista — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 18:59:40 GMT

There is an outstanding fear that, as in 2000, Barack Obama could win the national popular vote while losing narrowly in the electoral college. It has been asserted that the Republicans have a natural advantage in the electoral college due to two factors. First, less-populated rural states are over-represented. In 2004, each electoral vote in Wyoming represented around 80,000 voters while each elector in California represented roughly 226,000 voters. I will return to this point later. Right now I want to focus on the second argument. Charlie Cook has asserted that Republican voters are distributed more efficiently than Democratic voters. To quote:

Add in that Democrats need to win the popular vote nationwide by somewhere between a half point and 1.5 points to overcome the more efficient allocation of Republican electoral votes (Republicans only "waste" a lot of extra votes in Texas; Democrats do it in California, Illinois and New York) and that points to a particularly close fall general election.

Charlie Cook is a very astute observer of politics, but in this instance he is just plain wrong. In fact, in 2004 it was the Republicans who "wasted" more votes than the Democrats. Bush won his states by an average margin of 18%, while Kerry won his by an average margin of 13% (10% if you exclude D.C). Furthermore, if you define "wasted votes" as any vote margin greater than one in a state a candidate carried, then Bush has a LOT more "wasted" votes than Kerry. Bush "wasted" just under 8.8 million votes (14% of his total), while Kerry "wasted" about 5.8 million votes (10% of his total).

To break it down further, you can divide the states into landslide states (won by 20 points or more), base state (10-20 pts), solid states (5-10 points), leaning states (2-5 points), and swing states (less than 2 point margins). In 2004, here is how they fall out, in order of size of margin for each candidate:

Chart #1: Distribution of States by Popular Vote Margin
Bush states:
Landslide: Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, Nebraska, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Alabama, Alaska, Kansas, Texas, South Dakota, Indiana, and Montana
Base: Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, Georgia, Louisiana, Tennessee, West Virginia, North Carolina, Arizona
Solid: Arkansas, Virginia, Missouri, Florida
Leaners: Colorado, Nevada, Ohio
Swing: New Mexico, Iowa

Kerry states:
Landslide: D.C., Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont
Base: New York, Maryland, Connecticut, Illinois
Solid: California, Maine, Hawaii, Delaware, Washington, New Jersey
Leaners: Oregon, Minnesota, Michigan, Pennsylvania
Swing: New Hampshire, Wisconsin

The electoral vote totals in each category makes the gap pretty stark:

Chart #2: Distribution of Electoral College Votes by Popular Vote Margin
Bush:
Landslide: 96 EV (33.6%)
Base: 87 EV (30.4%)
Solid: 57 EV (19.9%)
Leaners: 34 EV (11.9%)
Swing: 12 EV (4.2%)

Kerry:
Landslide: 22 EV (8.7%)
Base: 69 EV (27.4%)
Solid: 92 EV (36.5%)
Leaners: 55 EV (21.8%)
Swing: 14 EV (5.6%)

In other words, Bush ran up gigantic (and hence inefficient) margins in the majority of electoral college votes he won. 64% of his electoral college votes were from states he won by more than 10 points, while only 36% of Kerry's were. Yes, the Democrats waste a lot of votes in New York and California, but all those 60-40 wins by Bush in the South, Rocky Mountains, and Farmbelt really start to add up.

Now one could look at this from a different perspective, namely that the Republicans have a larger base: they have more electoral college votes in their pocket that no Democrat has a chance to win. But this does NOT mean they have an electoral college advantage, per se, since it means that they are more likely to win the popular vote while narrowly losing the electoral college, assuming the national popular vote total is close. Yes, Democrats have a smaller core and thus have to win nearly ALL of the competitive states, but it also means that they have the potential to do so while losing the popular vote. Remember, heading into election night 2000, everyone was concerned that Bush would win the popular vote but lose the electoral college - not the other way around.

If you look at the historical record, the Bush victory in 2000 looks pretty unimpressive in electoral college terms. Rather than a lock, it looks like squeaking by. Normally the electoral college vote margin is substantially larger than the popular vote margin. John Kennedy won with less than .2% of the national popular vote but won over 300 electoral college votes. I have developed a "magnification rate," which is the proportional increase in the electoral vote margin with respect to the popular vote margin. It's determined by dividing the electoral vote margin by the popular vote margin. The magnification rate should give a reasonable indication of which candidates were particularly efficient in accumulating electoral college votes in any given election year. The chart below only includes those who won the popular vote. Every election since 1828 is included, except for 1860, 1912, and 1968 because those really weren't 2-party elections. The chart below is ranked by the magnification rate.

Chart #3: The Magnification Rate of Popular Vote Winners

Popmargin Electmargin magnification
1880 0.09 16 177.78
1960 0.17 15.6 91.76
1968 0.7 20.4 29.14
1844 1.45 23.6 16.28
1884 0.57 9.2 16.14
1852 6.95 71.6 10.30
1892 3.01 29.7 9.87
1840 6.05 59.2 9.79
1836 1.74 15.7 9.02
1868 5.32 45.6 8.57
1980 9.74 81.8 8.40
1944 7.5 62.8 8.37
1864 10.08 82 8.13
1988 7.72 58.6 7.59
1940 9.96 69.2 6.95
1992 5.56 37.6 6.76
1952 10.85 66.4 6.12
1872 11.18 62.5 5.59
1984 18.21 95.2 5.23
1976 2.06 10.6 5.15
1900 6.12 30.6 5.00
1896 4.31 21.2 4.92
1948 4.48 21.5 4.80
1996 8.51 40.8 4.79
1956 15.4 72.4 4.70
1932 17.76 77.8 4.38
1972 23.15 93.5 4.04
1936 24.26 97 4.00
1908 8.53 33 3.87
1928 17.41 67.2 3.86
1964 22.58 80.6 3.57
1832 17.81 59 3.31
1828 12.25 36.4 2.97
2004 2.46 6.5 2.64
1848 4.79 12.4 2.59
1904 18.83 41.2 2.19
1920 26.17 52.2 1.99
1924 25.22 46.3 1.84
1856 12.2 20.3 1.66
1916 3.12 4.4 1.41
1824 10.44 5.7 0.55
1876 3 ~~0.2~~ 0.07
2000 0.51 1 1.96
1888 0.83 ~~16.2~~ 19.52

As you can see, George Bush's 2004 magnification rate is one of the worst in the history of electoral politics at 2.64. His electoral vote margin (6.5 pts) was 6th worst all time. And let's not forget that his popular vote margin was the lowest for an incumbent who won re-election since 1916, and the 2nd worst ever (so much for the "Bush Mandate"). Compare this with Bill Clinton's 1996 magnification rate of 4.79, which is just under the median of 4.86. The most impressive electoral college performance of all time was James Garfield's in 1880. He won by less than a tenth of a percent, but crushed Winfield Hancock in the electoral college. (By the way, here's a nice bit of trivia: the biggest popular vote margin ever was Warren Harding's in 1920 - 26.2 pts, and the biggest electoral vote margin was Franklin Roosevelt's in 1936 - 97 pts)

I think part of the reason people like Charlie Cook may think the Democrats are at a disadvantage is 2000. Hey, you can see it right there at the very bottom. Gore indded lost even though he won national popular vote, but this is partly a mirage. Florida is a very large state and was the closest election that year, so a swing one way or the other is going to cause a big swing in the electoral college. If Gore had won by 537 votes rather than lost, he would have won the electoral college vote by an 8-pt margin, for a magnification rate of 16.41 - which would have been the 4th highest in history.

So much for the efficient allocation of popular votes.To return to the first point, that the overrepresentation of small states helps the Republicans, it should be clear from Chart #1 that Bush won his small states by ridiculous margins. Now, voters who "pile on" in a given state are in a strange sense disenfranchising themselves - they'd be better off if they were voting in another state. Bush's huge margins in small states means that Republican voters are packed together in those states, which dilutes their over-representation. In addition, the Democrats win small states too (D.C., VT, ME, RI, DE, HA, NH), so in the end it pretty much cancels out.

So I posit something pretty controversial: I think that if anything the Democrats may have a slight advantage in the electoral college, because they tend to be very competitive in lots of big states. They can take fewer electoral college votes for granted, but they have an edge in enough of them to give them a realistic chance of winning the electoral college even if they lose the national popular vote.

One final note: the probability that there will be a divergence between electoral college and popular vote winners is most likely at the end of re-districting cycle, since the distribution of electoral votes will then be furthest from census totals. The one time the electoral college really "misfired" was in 1888 - 2 years before the census. The 2000 election (which wasn't really a misfire because the Republicans probably stole Florida), was itself a re-districting year. Charlie Cook's estimate that Obama needs to win by 1-1.5 points is really the opposite of the case. In fact, because Republican states are growing faster than Democratic ones, the electoral college is if anything more biased to the Democrats.

If the 2008 election is close, there is a greater chance this year than in 2004 that the popular vote winner will lose simply because it's at the end of the decade. But I would hazard a guess that if it does happen, the odds are pretty good it will hurt the Republicans.

Obama VP Rundown - 20 candidates, with analysis and rankings

Syrith — Thu, 22 May 2008 18:14:05 GMT

In a matter of weeks or months, Barack Obama will select a vice presidential candidate to run with him this fall.

In order to get my head around the complexities of the Vice Presidential Selection Process and potential/desired outcomes, I scoured sites from HuffPost, to DKos/MyDD, Open Left, RCP, electoral college, and others to identify all of the candidates being bandied about as either front-runners or reasonable dark horse contenders. I stuck them all in a spreadsheet.

Next, I went through the same process to identify criteria by which a candidate might be selected. These criteria fall into two broad categories, which may be represented using the following principles:

1) ELECTORAL STRENGTH OF TICKET: VP should help Obama win electoral votes, or at least not hurt his chances to win them

2) CAPABILITY / FUTURE PRESIDENTIAL POTENTIAL: VP should make a good president someday, next election or if Obama leaves office

I added a variety of criteria which affect these principles to the spreadsheet.

Below the fold, I include the Top 20 VP candidates being discussed, and a personal ranking with analysis and arguments for why I've placed them where I have. This includes a set of strengths and weaknesses that I've identified for each, using this brainstormed list of criteria that draw upon the 2 principles above.
Here are the criteria I've considered:

CRITERIA, IN VERY APPROXIMATE ORDER OF PRIORITY
Should Be / (Should Not Be)
- Progressive / (Conservative)

- Swing or Red State or Regionally Strong / (Blue State or Regionally Weak)

- Demographically Strong - Race, Gender, Age*

- Charismatic, Good Surrogate / (Boring, Ugly, Awkward, Wonky)

- Democratic / (Republican/Other)

- Obama Supporter / (Clinton Supporter)

- Always Anti-War / (Formerly Pro-War)

- Post-Partisan, Change and Hope message / (Partisan, Cynical)

- Governor / (Senator, Rep, out of office, other)

- Military/Foreign Policy Experience / (None)

- Environment/Other Domestic Policy Strengths / (None)**

- Interested in being VP / (Uninterested)

*demographics could factor both ways - I've weighted "female" as positive electorally, "non-white/minority/young" as mixed, with positive and negative cascading effects

**I place a high premium personally on environmental issues. Keep in mind that my rankings are NOT intended to be predictive of actual outcomes, NOR are they intended to be my interpretation of the best pick representing everyone else's interests - some strengths are more important to me than others, as they doubtless are for you. I hope this provides a useful framework either way.

Here is the link to the VP spreadsheet, with 20 top candidates and analysis!

Please read it over, and weigh in on the comments if you like what you see, think it's intriguing, stupid, unhelpful - whatever ya got!

National Popular Vote Plan With A Twist: A 3-State Solution

Paul Rosenberg — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 20:26:16 GMT

I've been a fan of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, a way to get around the electoral college by simply getting enough states to elect a President with their Electoral College votes to agree to all cast their electoral votes for the winner of the national popular vote. Normally, it's thought of in terms of getting enough states to total 270 electoral votes.

This proposal has tremendous latent appeal, as the Electoral College has become quite unpopular of late. But it hasn't progressed as quickly as many, such as I, might have hoped.

One problem, for example, is that it's easily demogoged. For example, when Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed the California NPV compact bill, he said:

"It disregards the will of a majority of Californians" [and] "is counter to the tradition of our great nation which honor states rights and the unique pride and identity of each state."

You can always count on the Gropenator for a pompous braindead quip. But, then, there's no shortage of others with similar deficits. Add to that the reluctance of battleground states to reduce their importance, and the slow progress so far becomes quite understandable.

Now, however, U.C. Davis law professor and Findlaw.com columnit Vikram David Amar has advanced a radically modified proposal that just might work. Instead of relying on enough state to cast 270 votes, why not rely on a handful of key states--perhaps as few as just three==that no one can win without? His model suggestion is Ohio, Virginia and Florida, but the precise identity of the states is less important than the concept.

He lists three barriers to the NPV compact, and argues that the 3-state solution could substantially reduce all three. Read about it on the flip....
Obviously, such a proposal would significantly alter electability arguments, since it would no longer be about winning certain types of voters in certain specific states, and so Amar mixes in a little discussion of the Democratic primary process as well. Those wanting to read about that should definitely check the original out. Here, I just want to focus on the barriers mentioned and how they would be affected:

(1) The Efficacy Barrier--Reduced

One reason a given state might insist on involvement by a substantial number of other states before committing is that the particular state in question wants to be sure that its actions will accomplish the desired effect of moving to a national popular election - and thus forcing Presidential candidates to campaign for all votes nationally, regardless of how "in play" any given state is....
But given the (seemingly undisputed) demographic/partisan reality in 2008, as to which states are overwhelmingly likely to be determinative battleground states, a move by Florida, Ohio and Virginia together to give their electoral college votes to the national popular vote winner would create almost the same kind of complete certainty: No candidate could hope to win the White House without getting the electoral college votes of at least one of those states. So coordinated action by these three states alone (and perhaps even a two-state subset of these) would be sufficient.

This is an especially important point. It takes a long time to get a lot of states to pass something, unless you're like the beef lobby. Getting just three specific states to pass something is obviously a lot more doable--and each of the three states would know that.

(2) The In-State Un-Popularity Problem--Reduced

There is also a second reason a state might rationally be reluctant to allocate its electoral college votes to the national popular vote winner. The reason is that the national vote winner may be unpopular in that state (and lose there by a significant margin)....
But my present focus on present-day Ohio, Virginia and Florida answers that problem. These three states are, as noted above, considered by virtually everyone to be "in play" for Election Day 2008 - that is, their voters are relatively equally divided between the two major parties and their candidates. So even if, say, Ohio (by pledging to cast its electoral college votes for the national vote winner) ended up giving the Presidency to someone who lost in the state, any loss there would have been by a pretty small margin.

This is largely a perceptual problem, but Amar is right, that it would diminish the perception to have the states involved all be battleground states.

(3) The Sacrifice Of Current Relevance Problem

A third and related reason why a state might be reluctant to act is that acting could involve non-trivial sacrifice. Take Ohio, for example. If Ohio were to allocate its electors for the national popular vote winner, Ohio would be making the question of who wins the most votes in Ohio, in particular, less relevant than it is under the current scheme....
But if, somehow, people in just a small number of states like Ohio could be convinced that their sacrifice, while historically momentous, would not be so great in tangible terms, or is worth the cost, then meaningful reform could be attained with much less national energy that might be supposed.

This is the least convincing. Indeed, it seems clear that the states most willing--even eager--to have such a change are those that don't get attention now--meaning those that aren't battleground states. But this logic cross-cuts with #2.

So, what we have here is a tantalizing situation, where the possibility seems to have grown much closer--but is still not well within reach.

God is Green: The Movement Reshaping the American Electorate

Jay Hazen — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 15:20:45 GMT

In February 2006, a council of prominent Evangelical Christians signed a mission statement dedicated to the preservation of the only earth God gave us. Among the signatories were the Rev. Rick Warren (author of The Purpose-Driven Life and pastor of the country's largest church), David Neff (editor of Christianity Today), W. Todd Bassett (national commander of the Salvation Army), and the Rev. Berten A. Waggoner of Sugar Land, Texas.
Add these theologians to the 30 million Americans in the National Evangelical Association (NAE) - which released its own climate change warning before the 2004 election called "For the Health of the Nation." Even the Catholic Church, with 65 million Americans and 19 percent of the world's population, is weighing in. Pope Benedict XVI spoke forcefully on the issue:

"[Industrialized nations] are not morally free to repeat the past errors of others by recklessly continuing to damage the environment….Preservation of the environment, promotion of sustainable development and particular attention to climate change are matters of grave concern for the entire human family. No nation or business sector can ignore the ethical implications present in all economic and social development."

It's suddenly apparent that religious leaders recognize stewardship over the earth as a moral imperative. However, the thinking is not yet unanimous, and, as with many religious issues, unanimity seems unlikely.

Religions lack a consensus on matters from male-female equality to contemporary evolutionary theory. On gender relations you might see a scriptural battle between Eve the Apple-giver and Paul's Letter to the Galatians:

"Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." (Galatians 3:23, 28-29, NIV)

When examining modern evolutionary theory an easy contrast is made. Pope John Paul II said evolution is compatible with Biblical instruction about our Creator. Conversely, there is a cottage industry of museums for adults who will not entertain that possibility, museums showing animatronic dinosaurs on Noah's Ark (Creation Museum in Petersburg, KY) and dinosaur fossils dated back to the time of the Pharaohs (Liberty University Museum in Lynchburg, VA).

The squanderers believe that the world has plenty when God so desires, we have Free Will to allocate our resources, and any planetary crisis our misappropriations create is the ordained will of the Lord. As evidence, they cite the first chapter of Genesis, saying, "God blessed them and said to them, 'Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.'"(Genesis 1:28, NIV)

These squanderers omit that after people subdued and ruled the land they also began to chew through God's gift to humanity in a way that even Jesus found distasteful. Perhaps the angriest Jesus is seen in the Bible is His confrontation with the Pharisees in Matthew 23. After calling them a "brood of vipers," He asks how they will escape being condemned to hell. (Matthew 23:33) The word Jesus uses for hell is Gehenna, an open pit of garbage near Jerusalem that was perpetually burning. A landfill serving as a smokestack was the vivid picture that humanity's greatest Teacher chose when He had to explain hell. Also, the fact that he leveled this accusation against the Pharisees shows that even Jesus' tormentors recognized the evil.

The conservationists say that since the Fall of Man from Eden, God charges humanity with a life of labor and toil, cultivation and preservation of His planet until the end of time. The scriptural tradition for this school begins only a few verses later, in the second chapter of Genesis, which says, "The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it." (Genesis 2:15, NIV)

The squanderers tend to huddle together and shake each other's hands to prove their position. They frequently cite the Cornwall Declaration, signed by theologians of several faiths and denominations, as a universal consensus that speaks for Christianity itself. The Cornwall Declaration is rife with soft language punctuated with bogus, incredulous, unsubstantiated claims about the reality of the planetary crisis. A passage from it states: "Some unfounded or undue concerns include fears of destructive manmade global warming, overpopulation, and rampant species loss."

As a counterpoint, the archconservative and conservationist Rich Cizik, the NAE's Vice President for Governmental Affairs, talks about the nature of faith and the limitations of expertise. Cizik believes that if pastors and theologians want scientists to come to them for scriptural interpretation, they must be willing to trust the empirical tests of the scientific community. He became convinced that global warming deserved his attention when he read a survey the magazine Science conducted of peer-reviewed articles written between 1993 and 2003 that included a keyword "climate change." None of the 928 articles, published in peer-reviewed journals, broke the consensus. It could be clearly stated, then, that if a dissenting voice has any basis to claim that climate change isn't happening it should publish facts in a scientific journal and go straight to Sweden to claim the Nobel Prize.

Are evangelicals like Rick Warren and Rich Cizik staying true to the Bible? The Cornwall Declaration implies no. Some of its signatories - such as Dr. Calvin Beisner - say so explicitly. Yet Cizik does not shy away from the discussion. Answering the challenge, he pointedly told Bill Moyers in 2006:

"Look, there were people who said, 'Stay true to the Bible,' in the battle over abolition and slavery in America. And both sides said, 'I appeal to the Bible.' Was one side right and one side wrong? Of course. Why? Because at times we allow our political judgments to get ahead of our Biblical value systems."

Is that a challenging statement? Yes. However, the opposition can be equally specious (claiming Hurricane Katrina was a value judgment from God, as Dr. Beisner has). The matter is not approaching conclusion, but the sides are beginning to firm up, from national figures to small-town pastors. Like the abolition movement, it is beginning to appear that this is a generational conflict that will not be repressed.

If you're interested in the God is Green movement, please help me get attention for it by voting "thumbs up" on my debate question, below:

Link: http://www.10questio...

(Cross posted to other fine blogs, such as www.StreetProphets.com)

Bill Richardson as the answer to the California Republican Power Grab Initiative

Stephen Cassidy — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 18:26:43 GMT

There has been some analysis of the proposed California Republican power grab initiative. It would convert California from a winner take all state to one in which the electoral college vote is determined by votes in each Congressional district. Should the initiative pass, Dems would lose about 19 of California's 55 electoral college votes. Commentators have stated this initiative could guarantee a Rep victory in 2008.

If the initiative qualifies for the June 2008 California primary election, Dems of course will fight it tooth and nail. But all is not lost if it passes. We can still win in 2008 in a landslide. We don't have to have Rep Presidents forever. However, we must nominate a candidate that can win in solid Red states - and the best candidate for that task is Bill Richardson.
Generating support from outside the Democratic base is critical to taking the White House. The Presidential election of 2004 demonstrated the fallacy of the argument that all Democrats need to do is line up behind a candidate, generate a massive turnout and victory will be ours.

John Kerry received more votes than any other Democratic candidate for President in history, yet he still lost. On the other hand, as we saw in the 2006 Congressional elections, when Democrats attract votes from Republicans and Independents, Democrats win.

If the Rep power grab initiative passes in California next year, it becomes imperative that we not nominate another Northern liberal like Clinton or Obama. Forget the meaningless presidential match up polls more than a year before the election. They are just based on national name recognition at this point. Northern liberal Democrats don't carry solidly Red states. The White House will be lost if the Rep aren't challenged in the South, Southwest, Rocky Mountain and Western states, and that is guaranteed if the Rep power grab initiative passes in California.

The candidate I'm supporting is Bill Richardson. More than John Edwards, because of Richardson's Latino heritage and Western values as well as economic policies and stance on 2nd Amendment issues, Richardson is the ideal candidates for Dem to take Red states regardless of what happens in California.

New Mexico politics mirrors the partisan split in America today. In the last two Presidential elections, the outcome of the vote in New Mexico was decided by less than 1% of the ballots cast.

Richardson has been the most successful governor at the ballot box in New Mexico history. In a state evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats, Richardson won his first term in office by a 56 to 39 percent margin.

Four years later, when the campaign issue was his leadership and performance, Richardson was re-elected by an incredible 68 to 32 percent vote - more than twice his margin of victory in 2002. Forty percent of the Republicans that went to the polls in New Mexico last November voted for Richardson.

With Richardson at the head of the Democratic ticket, no longer would the fate of the Democratic candidate rise or fall on the outcome of one state. We would start with the same states carried by Senator Kerry in 2004.

Latinos who voted for Bush in 2004 would largely return to the Democratic Party. Independents would also favor Richardson. We already are seeing this. In the latest ARG poll for Iowa , Richardson, among Independents that lean Democratic, is leading the Democratic field:

Biden 3%
Clinton 18%
Dodd 3%
Edwards 8%
Kucinich 5%
Obama 21%
Richardson 25%
Undecided 17%

Add in his Western heritage and values, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada and Arizona would become blue states. That brings 29 electoral votes to the Dems, more than compensating for the lost electoral votes in California if the Rep power grab initiative passes but not enough to win the White House (assuming we carry all states Kerry won in 2004).

Florida with 27 electoral votes could make the difference. With Richardson as the nominee it could easily turn blue. Adam Smith, one of the top political commentator in Florida, described earlier this year Richardson's appeal in the state.

I defy anyone to name a Democrat better equipped to take Florida than New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson.
Think of it: a tax-cutting, NRA-supported progressive Democrat who can make a strong case in the conservative Panhandle; and the first Latino presidential nominee sure to energize the crucial Hispanic vote in South Florida and Central Florida.
For Central Florida's crucial swing voters disillusioned by what they've seen with Iraq and Katrina, the two-term red- state governor, former U.N. ambassador, and U.S. energy secretary can sell competence. Nobody on either side is as experienced and tested on the key issues of the day - foreign policy, energy independence and economic growth.

What Smith wrote would apply in other Southern states, in particular Texas. With 34 electoral votes, Texas is to Reps what California is to Dems. Kerry lost Texas by 23 points in 2004. The last time the Dems took Texas was Carter in 1976.

Today though, Democrats have been winning in local races in Texas. Again with Richardson's Western values and Latino heritage, he will have great appeal in Texas and could take the state.

How electable a Presidential candidate is should be taken into consideration, and all factors need to be considered including the possibility the California Rep power grab initiative could pass. Moreover, electability should not be viewed solely from the viewpoint of the Presidential race.

To achieve true health care reform, an aggressive plan attacking global warming and other policy initiatives that require Congressional approval, we must support a Democratic candidate that can assist down ticket Democrats win.

Richardson is the one Democratic candidate for President that has repeatedly shown an ability to attract support from Independents and Republicans. That will propel him to victory in November 2008, as well as lead to landslide victories for Dem candidates for the House and Senate nationwide.

Wednesday Evening Election Round-up Thread

Chris Bowers — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 23:26:52 GMT

Here is a four-pack for another fine, rainy evening:

Hastert To Retire Early; Special Election for IL-14 Likely
This is big news, and suddenly makes all of the attention the IL-14 Democratic primary has been receiving worth it:

An Illinois Republican source tells us former Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) plans to resign November 6 this year instead of finishing out his term. This would create a vacancy and trigger a special election in the 14th District.

Under Illinois statute, the governor, Rod Blagojevich (D), would get to pick the date of both of the special general election and the special primary election (with separate ballots for each party). The general election would have to be within 120 days of the vacancy (meaning by early March, if the November 6 resignation date holds). February 5 is the date for Illinois's presidential and congressional primaries, and slating the special election -- either the primaries or the general -- on that date would save state money.
If the special election, or at least the primary for the special election, is held on February 5th, it will coincide with Super Tuesday. This would be dangerous for Democrats, because it means that campaign would be largely overshadowed by the Presidential contest online, thus removing an important element of national support. Then again, with Obama running for President, it should also mean very high Democratic turnout in the district. Overall, it is hard to say if this will be a net benefit or not. Prairie State Blue has more on the IL-14 campaign.
Democrats Counter Republican Power Grab In California
This is a great move by California Democrats:

Democrats on Tuesday proposed putting on a 2008 ballot an initiative aimed at having California join the movement to elect presidents by popular vote. The initiative, if successful, also would head off a Republican effort to get some of California's electoral votes.

GOP consultants have proposed a separate initiative to change California's winner-take-all system of awarding its 55 electoral votes. Under this measure, electoral votes would be awarded by how congressional districts vote, which could benefit the Republican nominee in this state with more registered Democrats.(…)

A team of Democrats filed two virtually identical initiatives with the California attorney general's office Tuesday, a first step to begin gathering the hundreds of thousands of signatures needed to place either measure on the June or November ballot. (One version contains a clause stating that if both the Democratic- and Republican-backed initiatives make it onto the ballot, the one with the most votes would take precedence.)(…) The national drive toward a popular vote would not scrap the electoral college system, but would require states to award their electoral votes to whichever candidate wins the most actual votes nationally. It would take effect only if states representing a majority of the electoral votes agree to the change.
Not only would this prevent Republicans from stealing 19-20 electoral votes outright, making it much more difficult for Democrats to win the presidency in 2008 and beyond, but this is a great step forward for the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, a plan which I have endorsed in the past even as North Carolina Dems successful took four, and possibly seven, electoral votes from Republicans.
Clinton Way Ahead In New Gallup National Poll
To no one's surprise, Clinton stays well ahead of Obama and Edwards in the latest Gallup national poll 468 Dems and Dem leaners, 8/13-16., MoE 5, 8/3-5 numbers in parenthesis:
Clinton: 48 (48)
Obama: 25 (26)
Edwards: 12 (13)
No on else above 2%

Of course, remember that Iowa and New Hampshire have typically cancelled out nation polls.
Time For Teacher Accountability
Given my background as a teacher and union organizer, I find concepts like merit pay for teacher's an appalling means of destroying teacher recruitment, especially in inner cities, not to mention punishing many people who work in one of the most difficult professions nationwide. However, there is one circumstance where I wouldn't mind a little merit pay for teachers. Bush Dog Melissa Bean is apparently the new role model for Democratic candidates:

Bean, a self-styled pro-business Democrat from a slice of Chicago's north and northwest suburbs long dominated by the GOP, has become an archetype for many of the congressional rookies whose victories delivered control of the House to Democrats last fall -- and whose fortunes in 2008 will determine whether the new majority lasts another two years.(…)

"She's a real role model for someone like myself, running in a Republican-leaning district," said Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), a freshman who holds a top spot on the National Republican Congressional Committee's target list for 2008.(…)

Other Democrats followed suit across the country, winning seats long held by Republicans in areas where Bush cruised in his presidential victories. Bean mentored some of them, including Giffords, during the campaign.

'If she can do it, I can too'

"There's no question," Bean said in a recent interview, "that some of the candidates who ran in the last cycle said, 'If she can do it, I can too.'"
Holding up Giffords as a model isn't exactly compelling since, the NRCC abandoned the district to her on September 13, 2006. Would some of the other candidates Bean consulted include Diane Farrell, Lois Murphy, Linda Stender, Patricia Madrid, Mary Jo Kilroy, Victoria Wulsin, Christine Jennings, Teresa Hafen, and many of the other droves of Democratic women who lost close House elections in 2006? I mean, is there a way to take this as something other than an admission that Melissa Bean's instructions are at least partially responsible for the horrid performance of Democratic women in US House elections in 2006? It would certainly make a lot of sense, since moving to the right was not exactly the same winning strategy in 2006 that it might have been in 2004.

This is an open thread on elections.

Electoral College Shenanigans: now NC, next CA?

I Voted for Kodos — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 00:15:55 GMT

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.
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.