Another "Wrong Winner" in 2004?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 19, 2024, 02:30:16 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2004 U.S. Presidential Election
  Another "Wrong Winner" in 2004?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Another "Wrong Winner" in 2004?  (Read 8741 times)
zorkpolitics
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,188
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: November 16, 2003, 01:39:02 PM »

Although 2000 was the fist election in over 100 yrs. in which the popular vote winner lost in the Electoral College (with the possible exception of JFK in 1960), there was actually very little concern that a "wrong winner" had won.  In fact, it seems to me that the 2000 election has "legitimized" the Electoral College result over the Popular vote.  In any future close election, having a "wrong winner" will simply be a curiosity, "like the 2000 election", but hardly a serious concern.  
It might have been different if Bush had clearly won FL on election night, then the press might have focused on the wrong winner and the threat of faithless electors, rather than the FL recount.  
2000 may represent a major change in Electoral Politics.  Most of the large battle ground states of the past elections: NY, CA, IL, MA, NJ, and MI are now overwhelmingly Democratic, while TX is solidly Republican.  Only PA, OH, and FL remain battleground states.  Since the country seems to be split 50:50 between Democrats and Republicans, the future Presidential campaigns will shift to the smaller but electorally more volatile states: NH, ME, WV, VA, NC, TN, KY, MO, IA, WI, MN, OR, WA, NV, NM, CO, AZ, AR.  With a 50:50 nation, I think we are in for an era of close elections, (more like the period from 1876 to 1900 than most of the 20th century).  
I expect 2004 will also have a potential for an even bigger "wrong winner".   The Democrats now build up huge margins in NY, CA, MA, NJ, CT, IL that will overwhelm the Republican margins in the less populous MT and Plains states.  Also the growing Hispanic population in TX will probably reduce Bush's margin there in 2004.  Hence, I suspect that a Democratic nominee will need to "win" the popular vote by at least 1-1.5 million before he will win in the Electoral College.
Logged
NorthernDog
Rookie
**
Posts: 166


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: November 16, 2003, 05:58:25 PM »

In fact, it seems to me that the 2000 election has "legitimized" the Electoral College result over the Popular vote.  In any future close election, having a "wrong winner" will simply be a curiosity, "like the 2000 election", but hardly a serious concern.  
Interesting thoughts zork.  I disagree though about 2000 legitimizing the Electoral College simply because it's written into the Constitution, and therefore does not need to be validated by any election result or any reaction to an election result. It's legitimate because it's the law and is (virtually) impossible to change - no matter what C-Span callers on the Democrat line may say.
I wonder that folks said in 1888 though, when Grover Cleveland won the popular vote by nearly 1% but lost decisively in the Electoral College.  
Logged
zorkpolitics
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,188
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: November 16, 2003, 10:39:38 PM »


Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Interesting thoughts zork.  I disagree though about 2000 legitimizing the Electoral College simply because it's written into the Constitution, and therefore does not need to be validated by any election result or any reaction to an election result.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

You are of course correct that an Electoral College winner is legitimate since by definition it is Constitutional.  I was referring to what the Press would likely "discuss", what the election story would likely have been.

Logged
Ryan
ryanmasc
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 332


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: November 17, 2003, 03:11:42 AM »

This has some relevance to the discussion so I recommend you guys read Dave's excellent article on the EC.

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_procon.php
Logged
NorthernDog
Rookie
**
Posts: 166


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: November 17, 2003, 04:15:40 PM »


Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Interesting thoughts zork.  I disagree though about 2000 legitimizing the Electoral College simply because it's written into the Constitution, and therefore does not need to be validated by any election result or any reaction to an election result.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

You are of course correct that an Electoral College winner is legitimate since by definition it is Constitutional.  I was referring to what the Press would likely "discuss", what the election story would likely have been.

Gotcha.  It's a good press story because there is conflict and controversy involved.   Interestingly, I  haven't seen the Electoral College controversy used in any of the campaigns this time around (except Sharpton). As the article in Ryan's post notes, the EC helps keep the 2 party system firmly in place.  
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,260
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: November 17, 2003, 05:08:10 PM »

One argument in favor of the EC that has never made much sense to me is that the winner of the EC has greater geographic appeal. If you think about it, though, you have to have greater geographic appeal to win the popular vote. The most common way for one candidate to win the popular vote while the other wins the Electoral is for Candidate A to win the Electoral by winning many states (especially large states) by narrow margins, while losing to Candidate B in the popular vote because Candidate B won a lot of other states by large margins. But, hasn't Candidate B actually demonstrated more geographic appeal? Candidate B was at least competitive everywhere, whereas Candidate A had very little appeal in a lot of states. A good example of this was 1888, when Cleveland won the popular vote largely because he won by huge margins in the South, whereas Harrison won the Electoral because he won narrowly in many large Northern states. It seems to me that Cleveland had the greater geographic appeal, since he didn't get blown out in a entire region of the country like Harrison did.
The most logical argument in favor of the EC is federalism; that each state should have an individual voice in favor of selecting the President independent of what happens in any other state. Otherwise, it doesn't really make much sense to put so much emphasis on who wins each state, and ignore the margin of victory as the EC does. What makes states so special, as opposed to counties, cities, regions, etc.? Why isn't an EC-type system used by any of the states to elect their governor, giving a certain number of electoral votes to the winner in each county?
Logged
NorthernDog
Rookie
**
Posts: 166


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: November 17, 2003, 10:50:43 PM »

The most logical argument in favor of the EC is federalism; that each state should have an individual voice in favor of selecting the President independent of what happens in any other state. Otherwise, it doesn't really make much sense to put so much emphasis on who wins each state, and ignore the margin of victory as the EC does.
I believe that the electoral college was designed to alleviate the fears of small states of being controlled by the large states.  There was an assumption that people would support their "favorite son" candidate and so the states with more population would always control a popular vote outcome.   My guess is there would not have been a ratified Constitution without some kind of modified system such as the electoral college.  It was patterned after the Roman Senate-so it wasn't dreamed up out of thin air. But considering how long ago this was set-up, it's quite a concept.  Most of the world was living under a Monarchy. feudal lords, or tribes in the 1780s.  Also, I'm almost certain there was no popular vote in the early years.  The electors were appointed by state legislatures, which theoretically represented the will of the people.  
Logged
KEmperor
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,454
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.00, S: -0.05

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: November 20, 2003, 05:48:13 AM »

I still like the concept that the Electoral College requires the President to have a broad base of support thoughout the country.  I think the pro's outweigh the cons.  It is interesting that if you take the 2000 election and take the new Electoral Vote allocation, Bush wins by even more.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,260
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: November 20, 2003, 10:03:57 AM »

But, I don't think the EC does require a broad base of support. It may look broad on a map which only shows who won and lost in each area and ignores the margin, but the candidate who wins the popular vote often did so because he didn't get blown out in as many places as the popular vote loser did. I guess what I'm trying to say is, what is the definition of broad geographic appeal? Does it demonstrate greater geographic appeal to win some states with 51% and lose some others with 40%, or to lose some with 49% and win some others with 60%? The Electoral College says the former candidate has more geographic appeal, but I don't agree with that. Why is looking at the number of states a candidate has carried the only valid way to look at the issue, rather than, say, the number of states in which he was within at least 5%, or the number in which he was within at least 10%, or some other arbitrary cutoff?
Logged
NorthernDog
Rookie
**
Posts: 166


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: November 20, 2003, 07:48:35 PM »

Why is looking at the number of states a candidate has carried the only valid way to look at the issue, rather than, say, the number of states in which he was within at least 5%, or the number in which he was within at least 10%, or some other arbitrary cutoff?
Good point.  I think your underlying concern is the "winner take all" system of allocating the electoral college votes.  But at some point we honor the majority (or plurality) of voters in each individual state, so the margin of a win is irrelevant.  It's not a perfect system - a lot of votes truly are meaningless except that we get an idea of how much support a candidate had nationwide. (And of course the states could allocate the EC votes proportionally Smiley)
Logged
Ryan
ryanmasc
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 332


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: November 23, 2003, 03:00:52 PM »

A good site to look at the various possibilities of Electoral College reform is:

http://gning.org/electoral.html

An excerpt from the site which I liked:

PROPORTIONAL ELECTORAL VOTE.  This simply means that each state's electoral votes are divided in proportion to how the state's voters split, instead of allowing a winner-take-all system.  One or two states already do this.  We would have to be careful in exactly how we write the mathematical rule for how vote proportions are rounded off to whole electoral votes.  A variation would be to calculate each individual electoral vote according to the congressional district it represents, with the two senatorial votes being determined by the overall vote of the state.  This would leave the smallest states winner-take-all.

Advantages:  this is one of the few reforms listed here that might not require a constitutional amendment.  It could be mandated by Congress (though probably not if states protested strongly), or implemented one state at a time.  It would mean that the electoral college vote, within the limitations of roundoff error due to having only 538 votes total, would much more accurately reflect the popular mandate coming from the states.  It would preserve -- some would say restore -- the weighting of votes in favor of small states, which as noted above is probably very hard to eliminate, so we might as well consider that a good thing.  It would weaken the hold of the two party system: third parties would still tend to be seen only as spoilers, but their chances of breaking out of that role would be better.

Disadvantages:  if a significant third party effort is made, this reform would greatly increase the likelihood of the decision being made by the House of Representatives.  When that happens, your vote ceases to count.  And the variant of calculating votes by congressional district would make small states be winner-take-all while larger ones are proportional.

Logged
zorkpolitics
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,188
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: November 23, 2003, 03:36:35 PM »

A good site to look at the various possibilities of Electoral College reform is:

http://gning.org/electoral.html

Advantages:  this is one of the few reforms listed here that might not require a constitutional amendment.  It could be mandated by Congress (though probably not if states protested strongly), or implemented one state at a time

Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution says:
each state shall apoint, in such a manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of Electors.

Thus no federal law can change the manner of awarding electoral votes, without a constitutional amendment (which is not going to happen).  Thus, it remains up to each state to choose their system, whether it be by district method, proprotional, winner take all, or a poker game.

A major consequence of a proportional system would likely be a significant weaking of the two parites.   Since a third parties could win Electoral Votes with as little as 2% of the vote in CA, or about 3% in TX, NY or FL.  A proportional system would have put the 1992 election, and might have put the 1992, 1968, and 1960 elections into the House of Representatives.  Which would IMHO not be a good idea.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,772


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: November 24, 2003, 12:59:52 AM »

A proportional representation system would be better used to appoint the congressional delegation than presidential electors. Right now there are major problems in this country with safe seats and bad redistricting.
Logged
WONK
Rookie
**
Posts: 53


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: November 29, 2003, 02:14:34 AM »

Ahhhh, yes...safe seats.  Like those of Mikulski and Sarbanes.  That does need to be fixed.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,767


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: December 21, 2003, 06:44:17 AM »

In fact, it seems to me that the 2000 election has "legitimized" the Electoral College result over the Popular vote.  In any future close election, having a "wrong winner" will simply be a curiosity, "like the 2000 election", but hardly a serious concern.  
Interesting thoughts zork.  I disagree though about 2000 legitimizing the Electoral College simply because it's written into the Constitution, and therefore does not need to be validated by any election result or any reaction to an election result. It's legitimate because it's the law and is (virtually) impossible to change - no matter what C-Span callers on the Democrat line may say.
I wonder that folks said in 1888 though, when Grover Cleveland won the popular vote by nearly 1% but lost decisively in the Electoral College.  

Not to mention when Tilden won by 4% and still lost in the EC! Though that was fraud ,so maybe it doesn't count. To picture Bush as a wrong winner is wrong, since it is based on the notion that the American president is elected by the people, which he isn't. The best you can say is that he is elected by the states. The people more kind of shows its preference in the election. I think a more important point about the EC is the problem with faithless electors, since it makes the system fundamentally undemocratic. Coming from a country with proportional representation I find it weird that a quarter of the votes is enough to beat three quarters, but that's not the point.  
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: December 21, 2003, 07:22:17 AM »

I agree that the one big flaw in the electoral college system is the problem of faithless electors.

I don't think that electors should be individual people who can vote as they please.  Electoral votes should just be assigned based upon the results of each state's election, in accordance with rules that were laid out in advance, whether they be winner take all or proportional representation.

Can you imagine the chaos if a Bush elector had been convinced to vote for Gore in 2000?  After the whole Florida debacle, that would have thrown the whole country into constitutional chaos.

But as far as the whole philosophy of the electoral college, I think it has worked well, and does not need any real changes.
Logged
zorkpolitics
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,188
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: December 21, 2003, 03:46:08 PM »

Just a little clarification: I put the *wrong winner* in quotes for this thread, because others have called candidates who didn't win a plurality of the votes such.  I do not consider Bush a wrong winner, since he won a victory as the Constitution defines the process.  There are many electoral systems used on the planet, and  any electoral system is fair as long as all the candidates know the rules and compete under those rules.

The real purpose of the thread was to suggest that Bush's victory makes it less likely the Press will rant and rave about a wrong winner, since Bush has set a recent example.  

Actually because of the evenly polarized nature of the electorate, I expect a series of close elections over the next 20 yrs, any of which could generate an EC victory for either the Democrat or Republican who also came in second in the popular vote.

The Faithless elector is a problem, many states have passed laws requiring electors to cast their votes for the state winner, however the constitutionality of this is questionable.  Thus it would probably require a Constitutional amendment, something which is very unlikely.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.237 seconds with 13 queries.