Could it have made any major difference in any of the elections if every state counted its electoral votes by congressional district, rather than by the whole state?
US Elections If Every State Used The Maine/Nebraska System
- Thread starter Star Eater
- Start date
Romney would have won in 2012; he carried 226 congressional districts to 209 for Obama--despite losing the popular vote by almost four percentage points. http://cookpolitical.com/file/2013-04-50.pdf
Napoleonrules
Banned
That's scary that gerrymandering by Republicans is so outrageously bad that going by congressional districts gives them such an edge.
As others have said, gerrymandering makes this too much of an advantage for one party, you might as well just outlaw the Democratic party entirely. Now if you divided the electoral votes by percentage, say winning Georgia by 60% gave you 60% of the state's electoral votes, that would be more fair and would change the entire nature of campaigns. More money spent, more candidate travel, wider knowledge of issues, it would completely transform American politics.
And it might rule out a Reagan 1976 and 1980, Clinton 1992, McCain 2008, or possibly even Clinton 2016 as older and unhealthier candidates would have a real problem with that much travel
Napoleonrules
Banned
I would say a Reagan in 1976 was ruled out more by him losing the primaries than his age
jahenders
Banned
Gerrymandering, and the related malapportionment, are both dual-party issues. Both parties have used Gerrymandering to create favorable districts in different states at different times.
Note that the term was coined in 1812, about 40 years before the Republican party existed.
Note that the term was coined in 1812, about 40 years before the Republican party existed.
Right now, there are far more Republican-gerrymandered than Democratic-gerrymandered maps, due largely to the GOP victories in the governorships and state legislatures in 2010. However, *even apart from intentional gerrymandering* congressional districting would lead to the GOP getting more seats (and therefore electoral votes) than its share of the popular vote would warrant because of the "clustering" effect--the concentration of Democrats in overwhelmingly Democratic urban areas. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ten-miles-square/2014/09/why_democrats_cant_blame_gerry052004.php
Driftless
Donor
I'll agree with that. Both parties will attempt to finagle an advantage if they think they can pull it off.
You know that the electoral college was put in for a reason. Namely that the smaller states were afraid that the presidency would never care about them if it's was based on a straightforward popular vote.
And this still holds true today. Do you think anyone would care about states like Rhode Island or Alaska?
This kind of thing is why the south dominated the presidency before the civil war, And part of why they took there toys and tried to leave when the north managed to elect a president.
And remember back then your state was considered more important than the country. Something we lose track of now days.
Today this is becoming an issue again with the rise of the huge population states like California.
So there is no right or wrong way. Just different ways. And what you like is often based on were your interest are located.
And this still holds true today. Do you think anyone would care about states like Rhode Island or Alaska?
This kind of thing is why the south dominated the presidency before the civil war, And part of why they took there toys and tried to leave when the north managed to elect a president.
And remember back then your state was considered more important than the country. Something we lose track of now days.
Today this is becoming an issue again with the rise of the huge population states like California.
So there is no right or wrong way. Just different ways. And what you like is often based on were your interest are located.
jahenders
Banned
There may be, at present, more Republican-gerrymandered districts than Democratic-gerrymandered, but that's a temporary situation based (as you note) on 2010 victories.
Is one example of the bipartisan nature of the issues, Maryland and North Carolina are tied for the honor of the most gerrymandered states, per a Washington Post review (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...s-most-gerrymandered-congressional-districts/). Republicans drew those in North Carolina, Democrats those in Maryland.
Aside from gerrymandering and its related concepts, both parties have tweaked census process guidelines to change the numbers upon which all redistricting is based.
Rather that painting the issue as a single party issue, the easy fix is to use some objective algorithm for deriving them so it's not a man-made decision (partisan or otherwise) -- Shortest splitline, Minimum district to convex polygon ratio, etc. There are critics of all of these, but they're at least "fair" in that no party is intentionally given an advantage or disadvantage and that both would be helped/hurt in some cases.
Is one example of the bipartisan nature of the issues, Maryland and North Carolina are tied for the honor of the most gerrymandered states, per a Washington Post review (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...s-most-gerrymandered-congressional-districts/). Republicans drew those in North Carolina, Democrats those in Maryland.
Aside from gerrymandering and its related concepts, both parties have tweaked census process guidelines to change the numbers upon which all redistricting is based.
Rather that painting the issue as a single party issue, the easy fix is to use some objective algorithm for deriving them so it's not a man-made decision (partisan or otherwise) -- Shortest splitline, Minimum district to convex polygon ratio, etc. There are critics of all of these, but they're at least "fair" in that no party is intentionally given an advantage or disadvantage and that both would be helped/hurt in some cases.
One difficulty with any of these methods is that pure "geometrical" optimization will almost certainly be very sub-optimal in regard to pre-existing geography.
There are natural features and existing political boundaries which district borders should follow: large waterways, mountain crestlines, city and county borders. But these features don't run straight.
It might be possible to get over this problem, by minimizing total length of borders, but dividing the value of a given stretch of border by 1 plus the number of geographical features co-linear with it. That is, a stretch of border which runs along a county border would be halved; if it also follows a river, divided by three. A feature and border could be considered co-linear if there was no one living between them.
The other major difficulty (which causes much of the worst present gerrymandering, and also the Republican advantage in district wins) is the legally required creation of "majority-minority" districts. Many of the most flagrant gerrymanders are done for that reason (e.g. Illinois 4, the infamous "earmuff" district).
Unless this requirement is dropped, it will be impossible to fix the problem.
One thing to keep in mind about alternative election systems is that if the candidates know in advance that they're campaigning for electoral votes by state, electoral votes by congressional districts, or straight-up popular vote, then their campaign strategy will completely change. So we can't just simply plug in the numbers for congressional districts in a given election. We have to take into account that the candidates will campaign differently.
With this in mind though, I think most elections have been decisive enough that changing the system to a proportional electoral college vote or direct popular vote would not change the outcome in very many elections. Within the past century, the elections that are very obviously up for grabs under a different system are 1960, 1968, and 2000. 1976 and 2004 might be close enough to qualify as well. I don't see too many other election results changing under different systems. Even in the fairly close elections of 1948 and 2012, I still see Truman and Obama winning, regardless of the election system. And unless you make several earlier and extensive PODs, there is no way the outcomes of the elections in 1936, 1964, 1972, and 1984 change.
With this in mind though, I think most elections have been decisive enough that changing the system to a proportional electoral college vote or direct popular vote would not change the outcome in very many elections. Within the past century, the elections that are very obviously up for grabs under a different system are 1960, 1968, and 2000. 1976 and 2004 might be close enough to qualify as well. I don't see too many other election results changing under different systems. Even in the fairly close elections of 1948 and 2012, I still see Truman and Obama winning, regardless of the election system. And unless you make several earlier and extensive PODs, there is no way the outcomes of the elections in 1936, 1964, 1972, and 1984 change.
They don't care about Rhode Island or Alaska under the Electoral College either. The vast majority of the campaign is concentrated in the same ~10 swing states year after year.
Candidates never come to my home state of Mississippi, and my votes for Kerry and Obama literally didn't help them at all. At least under a national popular vote, a candidate could seek votes in all 50 states (the media would probably skewer them if they didn't) because all votes count the same, and I (along with Massachusetts Republicans, etc.) could actually contribute to their favored candidate winning.
Thank you! I've been saying this about the EC for years. It does NOT help the small states at all. Why would a candidate spend time and money trying to get Alaska or Rhode Island's 3 electoral votes? They don't. And you hit on another point-not only does the EC screw the little states, but some big states are ignored as well. No Republican bothers to campaign in New York or California and no Democrat campaigns in Texas. It would be a waste of time. With a direct popular vote though, candidates would campaign everywhere. A vote in Alaska would be worth as much as a vote in California.
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
And it sure would help to supplement this with greater confidence that there is not election fraud.
For example, I'm still somewhat surprised that Diebold did not receive more pushback.
For example, I'm still somewhat surprised that Diebold did not receive more pushback.
I would say a Reagan in 1976 was ruled out more by him losing the primaries than his age
He was 65 in 1976, and a 50 state campaign is taxing even at that age, so he might not try a primary run to begin with.
Bullshit they would. They'd go to the states with the most dense population to get more bang for their buck. Alaska, for example, would mostly be travel time, a complete waste and the same with Hawaii and most of the empty states out west. And not to put too fine a point on it, but even in the closest elections the margin was more than 3 electoral votes.
The only way to make it fair and to make every vote count is to apportion state electoral votes by percentage of state votes won. Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani both learned the hard way that when you do it my way, the small states can't be ignored