« OH: Six-Point Bush Lead | Main | Yes, Virginia, There is a John Kerry »
Tuesday, June 01, 2004
Electoral College Reform Revisited
Posted by DavidNYCBack in the very early days of this blog (aka last October), I wrote a post about electoral college reform. It produced a great set of comments which, if you're a numbers geek, I highly recommend checking out. Anyhow, I was primarily discussing what would happen if every state adopted a system like ME and NE's - where EVs are awarded for the winner of each Congressional District, and the overall popular vote winner gets the final two EVs.
At the end, I asked what I thought was a throwaway question, though it wound up sparking most of the comments:
Could a state pass a law appointing electors simply in proportion to the total popular vote won? I don't see why not. Article II �� 1 of the US Constitution says: "Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress." Seems like the states have free reign here.
The consensus was that, nationally, such a move would likely be bad for the Dems. But in particular states, it might help. And indeed, in Colorado, one group is apparently attempting to establish such a regime via ballot measure.
While this would help Dems in Colorado (had this system been in place in 2000, Gore would have gotten 2 of CO's EVs, rather than zero), it would hurt the Dems if it were adopted nationwide. And if such a system passes in CO, you can bet that Republicans in big Dem states (like CA, where getting an initiative on the ballot is easy, or NY, where both the Governor and State Senate are Republican) will try to push for similar measures there. In short, this is a war we don't want to start, as this right-wing columnist correctly observes.
Interestingly, while poking around for more information on the CO ballot measure, I discovered that a similar effort is underway in Missouri. Brad Ketcher, former chief of staff to the late Mel Carnahan, is apparently circulating petitions for two different electoral reform plans: One just like that in CO and one identical to the ME/NE system. Neither seem to have been given a spot on the ballot yet.
I couldn't find out any more info on this topic - most of the news about MO ballot measures concerns an attempt to ban gay marriage. (Sigh.) If any locals know any more about this (especially if you've been asked to sign this petition), I'd be grateful if you could let me know.
And again, while this system would have helped Gore in MO in 2000 - indeed, the straight-proportional plan would have split the state's EVs 6-5 and tipped the entire election to Gore - we really don't want to go down this path. If you want empirical confirmation of that, I once again suggest that you check out the comments to my old post mentioned above. And if we can win MO this year - which I think we can - then this system would hurt us.
My personal feeling is that the only appropriate voting reform is to abolish the electoral college and go to a national popular vote. This would, however, require a constitutional amendment. And since such a move would draw down the power of small states (and hence, Republicans), this is just never gonna happen.
(RMN column thanks to John Smith.)
Posted at 01:08 AM in Colorado, General, Missouri | Technorati
Comments
My personal feeling is that the only appropriate voting reform is to abolish the electoral college and go to a national popular vote. This would, however, require a constitutional amendment. And since such a move would draw down the power of small states (and hence, Republicans), this is just never gonna happen.
You are correct in both your opinions, I think -- although I think it has more to do with small state vs. large state than it does GOP vs. Dem. Some of the small states that benefit from the extra power that the electoral college gives them *are* Democratic strongholds (Rhode Island, for instance, or Hawaii) and they would probably object to, and campaign against, the kind of reasonable and logical reforms you call for, simply because it would undermine their influence.
So, at least for the foreseeable future, a vote in Idaho is worth more in a presidential election than a vote in New York. As a New Yorker, I don't especially like that, but I also recognize that New York (and the other large states) dominate the country's politics and culture in other ways.
Posted by: Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) at June 1, 2004 05:50 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Sure, there are a few tiny Dem strongholds, but I think most of the smaller states (ND, SD, ID, MT, WY, etc.) are GOP. So while such an amendment might see RI and WY on the same side, the charge against it would be led by the Republicans.
But also, RI and HI both know that the Dems will never spend money there (or even visit) in presidential races, so I'm not sure they'd have much to lose by going to a direct popular vote. But the GOP as a whole knows that it would suffer under such a system because they have a distinct small-state electoral advantage.
Posted by: DavidNYC at June 1, 2004 06:13 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Constitutional Amendments take ratification by 3/4 of States' Legislatures, just ain't gonna happen.
Now as to the State Initiatives... Since the US Constitution spells out apportionment of EVs by the Legislatures, not the voters, seems to me this is not a viable method. But the US Supremes could hold that in creating initiative processes, the legislature had "directed" that the voters could direct this process.
Posted by: Ben Masel at June 2, 2004 01:13 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
But the US Supremes could hold that in creating initiative processes, the legislature had "directed" that the voters could direct this process.
I'm pretty sure that this, in fact, is how things work.
Posted by: DavidNYC at June 2, 2004 04:02 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Listen: It's clearly time to move toward popular election of the president. The Colorado initiative does that, flat out. If the courts want to strike it down, fine. The people will have spoken, and the Supreme Court will have told us exactly where the bar is in terms of getting this done.
Anyone who agrees or wants more information, try Make Your Vote Count. You can hook up with the Colorado folks there.
Posted by: John at August 24, 2004 11:53 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I have no problem when Constitutional problems arise. I look at each challenge as the best education for voters.
I think it would be great if the Colorado intiative passed and then in a future election it caused the Electoral College to be unable to vote a majority and the election of President went to the House and the election of Vice President went to the Senate. Concievably then we could have a President and VP from different parties. I think that would be fantastic and throw open the whole rethinking of the electoral college system.
Posted by: Gregory Wonderwheel at August 25, 2004 12:25 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I think the big reason Democrats and Republicans are so opposed to ending the electoral college is that they are afraid it will make us look more like Europe. By that, I mean, it will weaken both parties by giving more possible power to other parties which under our current system have almost no voice in our government.
Posted by: Pepe at August 25, 2004 06:37 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
The most anti-democratic anomally in American government is the Senate itself, where Wyoming's 500,000 citizens stand equal to California's 34,000,000. The Senate is also, in my opinion, by far the more powerful house of Congress, given its veto power over treaties and judicial and other governmental appointments. The Electoral College anomally is but a pale shadow of this. Really, what a lot of states should be trying to do, if they were truly serving the interests of their citizens as opposed to the interests of a few self-important politicians, is to split themselves up. Texas, I understand, has a unilateral treaty right to do this, and other states would have to have the consent of both Congress and of their legislatures, but that's not nearly as tough as a Constitutional amendment.
Preferable to splitting up big states, though, would be to have Senators elected nationally somehow -- the top 33 vote-getters in staggered elections, for example. The American government has no legislators who by design represent the national interest, and it shows.
Posted by: Marsden at August 25, 2004 07:30 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment