Electoral College Reform Idea

[rockhound]

It tended to screw the Republican party when Democrats were still the majority. It cuts both ways.

I'll have to find the source for this, but I recall reading that before the Republicans won control of the House of Representatives in 1992, that'd they'd actually had more total votes in the house races for something like the last 10-12 years.

I don't know the totals offhand, but I highly doubt that Republicans could have won more votes than Democrats in the 1980s in House races. The Democratic majorities at that time were much larger than the Republican majorities have ever been since. The only way this MIGHT be possible is if votes cast in unopposed races weren't counted (many states do not release vote totals for unopposed races, since they figure there is no point). This fact makes a national comparison of the two parties' vote totals difficult to do accurately.

Kind of like adding DC's or Massachusetts vote totals into the US popular vote total.   They don't really much matter.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Great...

On top of following the polls in 10 or 15 battleground states, we'd be following the polls in about 100 battleground CDs:

"Currently Bush has pulled ahead in WI-1, but he's fallen behind now in FL-2, as well as in CA-22.  So currently, we have 120 CDs Strong Bush, 54 more Weak Bush, 76 tossup, 46 Weak Kerry, and 139 Strong Kerry.  There are 6 Strong Kerry states + DC, 7 Weak Kerry states, 15 Tossup states, 7 Weak Bush States, and 15 Strong Bush states.  So in toto, the current the polls are showing:

Strong Bush: 150
Weak Bush: 68
Tossup: 106
Weak Kerry: 60
Strong Kerry: 154"

And could you imagine the election night coverage???  As each CD comes in and fills a gigantic map that you need an HDTV to make sense of?  The two-week wait while those 20 or 30 too-close-to-call CDs have manual recounts?

Great for us political junkies.
Bad for democracy.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Great...

On top of following the polls in 10 or 15 battleground states, we'd be following the polls in about 100 battleground CDs:

"Currently Bush has pulled ahead in WI-1, but he's fallen behind now in FL-2, as well as in CA-22.  So currently, we have 120 CDs Strong Bush, 54 more Weak Bush, 76 tossup, 46 Weak Kerry, and 139 Strong Kerry.  There are 6 Strong Kerry states + DC, 7 Weak Kerry states, 15 Tossup states, 7 Weak Bush States, and 15 Strong Bush states.  So in toto, the current the polls are showing:

Strong Bush: 150
Weak Bush: 68
Tossup: 106
Weak Kerry: 60
Strong Kerry: 154"

And could you imagine the election night coverage???  As each CD comes in and fills a gigantic map that you need an HDTV to make sense of?  The two-week wait while those 20 or 30 too-close-to-call CDs have manual recounts?

Great for us political junkies.
Bad for democracy.

That's fine...I have an HDTV!

[muon2]

With regard to gerrymandering helping the Democrats:

Single-member geographic districts (districts that are most prone to gerrymandering) have a funny effect on party strength.

Such districts HELP:
- Small parties that are geographically compact (e.g. Canadian Bloc Quebeqois)
- Large parties that are geographically expansive (e.g. Canadian Liberals, American GOP)

These district HURT:
- Small & medium parties that are geographically expansive (e.g. Canadian NDP, British LibDems)
- Large parties that are geographically compact (e.g. American Dems)

Gerrymandering is hurting the Democrats now, but helped them through the 1980's...for two reasons.  First, the Democrats controlled most of the state legislatures, especially in the South, until the 1990's.  But more importantly, the Democrats have become more geographically compact while the GOP has become more geographically expansive.  

The Dems have lost strength in rural areas and gained stregth in cities.  This has made it easy for the GOP to draw a few districts with huge Democratic majorities, leaving the majority of districts with a moderate Republican lean.  As an example, Al Gore got 80% of the vote in about 20 CDs in 2000...Bush didn't get 80% of the vote in a single district, but won more districts overall.

An execellent and concise analysis of single-member-district polictics.

On Beef's post: I think a Presidential result would be less likely to come down to the wire. The total number of swing CD's right now are less than 50. The number of swing state EV's are much more than 50.  So at the big picture level the race is easier to project at the CD level than at the state level.

Also, the chance that a very close vote in one district will change the outcome is greatly reduced. For a close vote in FL to change the result, the candidates must now be within 27 EV of 270.  If the vote uses the ME/NE system a close state only matters if the candidate is within 2 EV of 270. So, by that measure the chance that a close result changes the election is also reduced.

[J-Mann]

Any reform proposal based on a congressional districting system is a bad idea.  The previously mentioned gerrymandering would certainly be a problem, but making the election a race in 485 distinct areas as opposed to the current 50 would seriously complicated the process and empower regional candidates.  Had a district plan been in use in the last 50 years, Nixon would have won in 1960, Ford and Carter would have tied at 269 each, and George W. Bush would have defeated Al Gore more convincingly at 288-250.  

Any modifications to the College, including the district and proportional plans, fail to take into account the considerable problems they would cause.

[Nym90]

Since it seems that it is primarily Democrats who push for a change in the electoral college.  Let them lead by example:  Why not have the statres that Democrats most frquently win: MA, CA, IL, NY, NJ, CT all adopt proportional allotment of Electoral votes.  That would produce a more democratic result since EV would be allocated based on how all the people voted, not just to the winner.

So basically the Democrats must take a system that is rigged against them, and make it worse?

If they beleve in principles over crass politics, yes

But it would only be fairer if every state adopts it. If only states that favor one party adopt it, and states that favor the other party don't, then it ends up being much less fair as it tilts heavily in favor of one side. So the whole argument of it being a fairer way to distribute the electoral votes no longer applies.

[GOPman]

Leave it alone, the Founders new what they were doing and were brilliant in their understanding that one day Liberals would try and make the change!

This shows how much the EC supports the average American Citizen. God Bless America!

[Light Touch]

So basically the Democrats must take a system that is rigged against them, and make it worse?

Maybe y'all should stop pandering just to the poor city folk, hmm?