North Carolina may adopt District Method for choosing electors

[Padfoot]

From Ballot Access News:

On July 25, the North Carolina House Election Law & Campaign Finance Committee passed SB 353. It provides that each U.S. House district in North Carolina would elect its own presidential elector. The bill had passed the Senate on May 24. It is likely to receive a vote in the House on July 26. The bill passed on a party-line vote, with Democrats voting “yes” and Republicans voting “no.” Thanks to Rick Hasen for this news.

The only states that currently let each U.S. House district choose its own presidential elector are Nebraska and Maine.

If this method had been used in 2004 Kerry would have received 4 of the state's 15 electoral votes.

[CultureKing]

Good, I think all of the states should do this, red state or blue state

[Verily]

Interesting. Would this come into effect for 2008? Gore would have won in 2000 were this in effect.

[True Federalist]

I bet Dave hopes this doesn't become law.  Imagine having to add 13 options to the EV calculator, the predictions, and the mock election. Plus there's the question of where to place 13 boxes on the map.

[Ghyl Tarvoke]

From Ballot Access News:

On July 25, the North Carolina House Election Law & Campaign Finance Committee passed SB 353. It provides that each U.S. House district in North Carolina would elect its own presidential elector. The bill had passed the Senate on May 24. It is likely to receive a vote in the House on July 26. The bill passed on a party-line vote, with Democrats voting “yes” and Republicans voting “no.” Thanks to Rick Hasen for this news.

The only states that currently let each U.S. House district choose its own presidential elector are Nebraska and Maine.

If this method had been used in 2004 Kerry would have received 4 of the state's 15 electoral votes.

So basically the question here is "Do the Democrats have a majority in the NC house"?

EDIT: I've just looked it up. It does - and quite a big one too. So this will pass... Good luck Dave. (Due to what Ernest said)

[Hashemite]

Very good method.

Good luck Dave if this passes with inserting 13 boxes on the NC spot.

[bullmoose88]

Hmm. Interesting, is there any state the GOP could do this and have it be to their advantage?

[True Federalist]

Hmm. Interesting, is there any state the GOP could do this and have it be to their advantage?

Not easily.  The States in which the GOP controls both the Legislature and the Governor's mansion at present are all solid Republican States presidentially.  They could try to do it via the initiative process in California and other states that allow the initiative.

The Democrats could pull this off in Arkansas, Louisiana, and West Virgina, although only in Louisiana would this be guaranteed to help the Democrats gain EVs.

[Erc]

Watch the Democrats win NC at large by a squeaker next year while the Republicans win 6 districts

[Not that the lost Democratic EV's would matter at that point, even if Edwards is the nominee, but it'd be a nice lining on a horribly lost election if it does happen].


I do hope this doesn't happen on a large scale (and if largish states like NC do it, the trend might catch on elsewhere eventually)...It's bad enough that gerrymandering affects the House, I'd rather not have it affect the Presidency...

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

2004 results by district, and how I think it'll go in 2008. Remember, I expect the Democrat to do better in NC than Kerry.

1: Kerry won 57.4-42.4 (SAFE DEM)
2: Bush won 54.1-45.6 (TOSSUP, DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSMAN)
3: Bush won 67.8-31.9 (SAFE GOP)
4: Kerry won 55.2-44.3 (SAFE DEM)
5: Bush won 66.3-33.3 (SAFE GOP)
6: Bush won 69.4-30.2 (SAFE GOP)
7: Bush won 55.9-43.7 (TOSSUP, DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSMAN)
8: Bush won 54.3-45.4 (LEAN GOP, ALMOST ELECTED DEMOCRAT IN 2006)
9: Bush won 63.4-36.3 (SAFE GOP)
10. Bush won 66.9-32.7 (SAFE GOP)
11. Bush won 56.9-42.5 (LEAN GOP, SEAT WENT DEMOCRATIC IN 2006)
12: Kerry won 62.5-37.1 (SAFE DEM)
13: Kerry won 52.4-47.2 (SAFE DEM)

That's 4-6, maybe as many as 8 extra electoral votes for the Democrat.

[Padfoot]

I do hope this doesn't happen on a large scale (and if largish states like NC do it, the trend might catch on elsewhere eventually)...It's bad enough that gerrymandering affects the House, I'd rather not have it affect the Presidency...

I agree.  I really like this method in theory but in practice it is prone to manipulation due to gerrymandering.  It works best in smaller states like Maine and Nebraska because it is hard to gerrymander when you don't have very many districts.

I'd prefer the larger states (10 EVs or more) to adopt the proportional method.

[Former Moderate]

I am incredibly unsettled by this news.

I'd be more supportive if this was a measure to make sure every state divides up their EVs by Congressional District, but this is nothing more than a blatant Democratic power grab.

Unfortunate.

[True Federalist]

I'd be more supportive if this was a measure to make sure every state divides up their EVs by Congressional District, but this is nothing more than a blatant Democratic power grab.

Unfortunately, there is no way to do that short of a Constitutional amendment.

[bullmoose88]

I don't mind it, hopefully it sparks a movement towards this thing nationally.

[Sam Spade]

2004 results by district, and how I think it'll go in 2008. Remember, I expect the Democrat to do better in NC than Kerry.

Why?  Edwards probably added roughly 3% to the Kerry totals.  The Democratic congressman makes no difference, it's the Presidential numbers that matter.  Here is the correct (non-hack) analysis:

1: Kerry won 57.4-42.4 (SAFE DEM)
2: Bush won 54.1-45.6 (LIKELY GOP)
3: Bush won 67.8-31.9 (SAFE GOP)
4: Kerry won 55.2-44.3 (SAFE DEM)
5: Bush won 66.3-33.3 (SAFE GOP)
6: Bush won 69.4-30.2 (SAFE GOP)
7: Bush won 55.9-43.7 (LIKELY GOP)
8: Bush won 54.3-45.4 (LIKELY GOP)
9: Bush won 63.4-36.3 (SAFE GOP)
10. Bush won 66.9-32.7 (SAFE GOP)
11. Bush won 56.9-42.5 (SAFE GOP)
12: Kerry won 62.5-37.1 (SAFE DEM)
13: Kerry won 52.4-47.2 (LIKELY DEM)

In short, the Dems can expect to gain four electoral votes, unless the national election is probably around +5% for either side in comparison to 2004.

[Sam Spade]

FWIW, I agree with Mr. Moderate on this one.  Especially since, unlike Nebraska and Maine, North Carolina contains some really egregious gerrymanders (see NC-12).  And it also means that NC is unlikely to get any Prez campaigning this upcoming year (unless there is a lead by one of the two candidates of greater than MOE).

As a minor point, the Dems better hope that something like this doesn't end up deciding an election.

[Gustaf]

Looking back, this would generally speaking make elections less representative than they already are. For instance, Bush would have won in 2000 by an even larger margin than he actually did. IIRC, Carter would have lost in 1976 too. So contrary to what many think here, this does not increase the correlation between the national popular vote and the electoral vote, but if anything seems to decrease it. Sure, it benefits the Democrats in North Carolina, but if it were to happen nationwide the number of lost electoral votes in states like California and Michigan would be huge.

[King]

EVs should be split up based on the popular vote in each state not congressional districts.

[jimrtex]

I am surprised the Democrats didn't try to implement the system used in North Carolina from 1792-1808 when its electors were chosen by electoral districts (no statewide results).   With 15 ED's and control of the legislature, they could probably pick up a couple of more electors.

[True Federalist]

I am surprised the Democrats didn't try to implement the system used in North Carolina from 1792-1808 when its electors were chosen by electoral districts (no statewide results).   With 15 ED's and control of the legislature, they could probably pick up a couple of more electors.

Even with a Democratic Justice Department, I doubt if the districts could win the necessary Justice Department approval under the Civil Rights Act in time for the 2008 election.  With Goofy Gonzales in charge, no way it would happen in time.

[Nym90]

I have to disagree with the idea that there would be a political backlash against the Dems if they ended up winning the election because of this split in NC's electoral votes; certainly at least not as much as the Republicans got for winning in 2000 without winning the popular vote.

So long as you accept the concept of the Electoral College, which is founded on the premise that the individual states have a say in the election of the President as opposed to the election being a direct democracy, it would be hypocritical to argue that the states all have to have the same system for choosing their electors and that they shouldn't have the right to divvy them up any way they choose.

If the Democrat wins the popular vote and wins the electoral vote 270-268 by virtue of winning 4 North Carolina electors, I don't see a logically consistent argument that the Republican was the rightful winner of the election (not that that won't stop people from trying to make it I suppose, but still...).

[Sam Spade]

I have to disagree with the idea that there would be a political backlash against the Dems if they ended up winning the election because of this split in NC's electoral votes; certainly at least not as much as the Republicans got for winning in 2000 without winning the popular vote.

So long as you accept the concept of the Electoral College, which is founded on the premise that the individual states have a say in the election of the President as opposed to the election being a direct democracy, it would be hypocritical to argue that the states all have to have the same system for choosing their electors and that they shouldn't have the right to divvy them up any way they choose.

If the Democrat wins the popular vote and wins the electoral vote 270-268 by virtue of winning 4 North Carolina electors, I don't see a logically consistent argument that the Republican was the rightful winner of the election (not that that won't stop people from trying to make it I suppose, but still...).

You're partially getting my point.  Of course, if the Dem wins the popular vote and wins 270-268, the mass populace probably won't care.  But it can be used as a tool for enthusing base Republicans (who will have plenty of tools like this if they lose in 2009).  The real danger is if the Dem loses the popular vote and wins 270-268 because of this.  The "we wuz robbed" argument can work just as well with Republicans as it can with Democrats, regardless of the truthfulness of the accusation.  Moreover, I consider it uncertain how this type of stuff plays with the electorate down there in NC, which is known as being a DINO-haven (note: every Senate Dem in a potentially questionable seat voted against it).

As I have said before, I personally don't care (and neither does the Constitution) about how states divvy up electoral votes.  I have always been fine with a system based on CDs, as long the CDs are neutrally created.  But I think it is wise to oppose it when the CDs are gerrymandered and the proposal is based on partisan motives (it certainly will not increase candidate interest in the state).

[Nym90]

Oh I certainly agree that it is wise to oppose it. I don't support this plan, and I agree that the Dems in NC would be in political trouble if this causes NC's favored candidate to lose the White House.

And if this did win the White House for the Dems, it would guarantee that the GOP would start trying to do it everywhere they could in the future, and if this system were implemented in every state in the country it would help the GOP overall.

And yeah, the worst part of dividing EVs by CD is that it makes gerrymandering just that much more likely. Though as others have said, maybe it would finally produce enough incentive for the process to be taken out of the hands of partisans, which if it could accomplish that would possibly make the idea worthwhile in its own right.

My only point is that you can't have it both ways about supporting the Electoral College but also opposing the concept of states rights when it comes to how to allocate one's EVs (not that people won't still try to have it both way, of course ).

[Former Moderate]

I'd be more supportive if this was a measure to make sure every state divides up their EVs by Congressional District, but this is nothing more than a blatant Democratic power grab.

Unfortunately, there is no way to do that short of a Constitutional amendment.

Plenty of states are looking at awarding their electoral votes based on who wins the national popular vote, but are making such a jump contingent on other states approving the method, as well.

North Carolina could approach the change along those lines, but if they did, that wouldn't toss a handful of EVs to Hillary just in time for the '08 Election, now, would it?

[DownWithTheLeft]

I always knew the South elected Dems locally would become a problem, maybe that will stop that.  I think Dems can kiss their seats good-bye!