WI: 50/50 Electoral College Split in 2000

Teshuvah

Banned
Assume it happens in a way that makes Florida irrelevant (Bush wins it, but gets 269 because of New Hampshire or something). The House is GOP controlled, so he should be voted in. Does the Senate vote in Dick Cheney? Does the movement to abolish the electoral college pick up steam?
 
The Senate was tied, so Gore as VP casts the tie-breaking vote for Lieberman(though maybe he goes for Cheney to unite the nation, but lieberman would probably win). The EC might actually be in a stronger position as the Florida debacle was pretty hard to top and it still lives on(though another malfunction in 2004, as in my TL, and the movement might do better). I'm not sure what difference there'd be, though maybe no Cheney as Vp and VP lieberman impacts the Bush administration(though Lieberman was a hawk too).
 
pe2000whatif2.gif


Scenario - a change of 5,381 votes (0.0051% of national total) in four states between Bush and Gore results in no electoral majority. The election would have been decided by the U.S. House of Representatives.
Florida - 269 votes (0.0045% from Bush to Gore); New Mexico - 184 votes (0.031% from Gore to Bush); Wisconsin - 2,855 votes (0.11% from Gore to Bush); and Iowa - 2,073 votes (0.16% from Gore to Bush).


107_us_house_membership.png


The GOP controlls 27 state-delegations in the House. The House votes Bush.

The Senate is 50-50. Al Gore cast the final vote for Joe Lieberman.

We have Bush/Lieberman.
 
Would have been cool if the Dems got control of two states (or at least tied the GOP in a couple of state delegations, in which case I understand its counted as an abstention), deadlocking the vote in the House. Would Lieberman have become president then, thanks to Gore's vote in the Senate?
 

ben0628

Banned
Your map proves in my opinion that the electoral college is extremely important. Without it, Democrats only have to campaign in coastal cities to win the election and can completely forget about the entire middle of the country if they wanted to.
 
Hehehe poor Al Gore. Just a VP who wants to stay in the White House for another term but he's forced to elect his own VP running mate to stay around. It's like your boss is making you select your replacement, except that boss is a document written over two centuries ago.
 
Your map proves in my opinion that the electoral college is extremely important. Without it, Democrats only have to campaign in coastal cities to win the election and can completely forget about the entire middle of the country if they wanted to.
Math disagrees with you. Here, educate yourself:
 
Vice President Lieberman becomes President Bush's ally during the Iraq War. Like OTL Lieberman goes nowhere when he runs for President in 2004. The Republicans get a majority in the Senate when the Republican Governor appoints a Republican to replace Lieberman. That goes back to a 50 50 tie when Jim Jeffords switches sides. Vice President Lieberman casts the tie breaking vote to give the Democrats a control of the Senate again.
 

jahenders

Banned
Math disagrees with you. Here, educate yourself:

Interesting video, but distorted on several key points.

First, while it's true that just focusing on a few big cities won't get you elected, focusing on the areas in/around those big cities can. That is, you couldn't just do NY, LA, Chi, etc. However, if you just campaign/in around a few big cities, you get a lot closer. Keep in mind that 80% of the population lives near a big city. So, spend a few days in/around NY, LA, SF, SD, Chicago, Seattle, Philadelphia, Boston, Minneapolis, Atlanta, and maybe Dallas/San Antonio, or Miami and you could be in -- you've hit a whopping 7 or 8 sates.

Second, one of the problems he claims for the electoral college (EC) is that most states award their electoral votes (EVs) as winner-takes-all, so winning by 1 vote is as good as winning by a million. While that is how most states award EVs, that is NOT a feature of the EC -- THAT is a decision by each of those states. Some states award EVs proportionally and all could if they so chose.

IMNSHO, getting rid of the EC would be a) VERY HARD as you'd have to get a lot of states to vote for it who'd be hurt by the change, b) a terrible idea -- it was put in place for multiple reasons, some of which still exist.

A better (and easier) fix is to get all states to award proportionally. If you do that, you'd have several big benefits:
1) The level of win makes a huge difference, so candidates won't be nearly as likely to write off either states where they're well ahead or well behind.
2) The EV count will more closely match the general population vote in far more cases. Simple example -- as it is, win CA now by 1 vote and you've go 55 EVs to 0; vs 6.5001M to 6.5000M. Change to proportional and that 1 vote win gives you 28 EVs to 27.
 
Keep in mind that 80% of the population lives near a big city.

And this is precisely why focusing on big cities can get you elected president - because a huge majority of Americans live in big cities.

IMNSHO, getting rid of the EC would be a) VERY HARD as you'd have to get a lot of states to vote for it who'd be hurt by the change, b) a terrible idea -- it was put in place for multiple reasons, some of which still exist.

That's absolutely true, but that doesn't mean that the EC is not flawed.
 

jahenders

Banned
And this is precisely why focusing on big cities can get you elected president - because a huge majority of Americans live in big cities.

That's absolutely true, but that doesn't mean that the EC is not flawed.

Certainly the EC is not perfect. Churchill's quote that, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others" applies with the EC and many other things in the constitution. That being said, the constitution (including the EC) has served the US pretty well for 200+ years and the EC is far from the biggest problem with the US government. Personally, I think the EC still has value supporting the idea that the US isn't just a 'flat network' of 300M people -- it's a collection of states, made up of 300M people. If you're going to get rid of the EC, you might as well do away with how congressional representation is done -- instead of having 435 people elected to state-based districts, just have 100 people elected in population-based districts that are computer-realigned after each census.
 
First, while it's true that just focusing on a few big cities won't get you elected, focusing on the areas in/around those big cities can.
It can't. Allow me to demonstrate

So, spend a few days in/around NY, LA, SF, SD, Chicago, Seattle, Philadelphia, Boston, Minneapolis, Atlanta, and maybe Dallas/San Antonio, or Miami and you could be in -- you've hit a whopping 7 or 8 sates.
This is false. Even going by the widest possible definition of "around", i.e. winning every vote from the entire state, down to the last God-forsaken hamlet on the other end of the states containing the cities you mentioned, it still not enough to win the election.

That's the beauty of math, it's not really down to personal opinion.

Keep in mind that 80% of the population lives near a big city.
And this is precisely why focusing on big cities can get you elected president - because a huge majority of Americans live in big cities.
This is also false, unless you count everything above Bellevue, Iowa (population 2,543) as being "big":

http://www.citylab.com/housing/2012/03/us-urban-population-what-does-urban-really-mean/1589/
According to new numbers just released from the U.S. Census Bureau, 80.7 percent of the U.S. population lived in urban areas as of the 2010 Census
...
The New York-Newark metro area is still the nation's most populous, with 18,351,295 residents. Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim is still the second, with 12,150,996, and the Chicago area is still third, with 8,608,208. Despite all the booms and busts in other cities over the years, these three have been the most populous since the 1950 Census, when urban areas were first delineated by the Census Bureau. Their dominance likely extends even farther back in history.

But we're not just talking about cities here. The new figures represent the population in "urban areas," which the Census Bureau defines as "densely developed residential, commercial and other nonresidential areas."

There are officially two types of urban areas: “urbanized areas” of 50,000 or more people and “urban clusters” of between 2,500 and 50,000 people. For the 2010 count, the Census Bureau has defined 486 urbanized areas, accounting for 71.2 percent of the U.S. population. The 3,087 urban clusters account for 9.5 percent of the U.S. population.

Though these smaller urban clusters account for a relatively small portion of the total population, they make up the vast majority of the roughly 3,500 "urban" areas in the U.S. But is a town of 2,500 people really what we think of as "urban"?

According to the Census Bureau, a place is "urban" if it's a big, modest or even very small collection of people living near each other. That includes Houston, with its 4.9 million people, and Bellevue, Iowa, with its 2,543.

With such a wide range in populations, there's also a wide range in average densities among these urbanized areas and urban clusters. The L.A.-Long Beach-Santa Ana metropolitan area has the highest population density, with 6,999.3 people per square mile. Hickory, North Carolina, has the lowest, with 811.1 people per square mile. Among urban clusters, Richgrove, California, has the highest density (and highest in the nation), with 10,016 people per square mile. Center, Alabama, has the lowest, with 363 people per square mile.

But 2,500 people is hardly what we'd think of as a city, or even 5,000 for that matter. Let's say we decided to call places with 20,000 residents or less small towns. Of the 3,573 urban areas in the U.S. (both urbanized areas and urban clusters), 2,706 of them are small towns, by this definition. That's 75.7 percent. If roughly 80 percent of our population is urban, roughly 80 percent of our urban areas are actually small towns.
You would have to go down to the 48th biggest 'urbanized area' just to get to 50% of the population.



Second, one of the problems he claims for the electoral college (EC) is that most states award their electoral votes (EVs) as winner-takes-all, so winning by 1 vote is as good as winning by a million. While that is how most states award EVs, that is NOT a feature of the EC -- THAT is a decision by each of those states. Some states award EVs proportionally and all could if they so chose.
They wouldn't, not in a million years, due to the free rider problem: California Democrats could in theory decide to award EC votes proportionally, but all that does is provide an advantage to Republicans, and as long as Republicans in red states don't reciprocate, it would be truelly idiotic for California to go it alone.

The best possible proportionality, with zero rounding issues, where votes match voting population down to the last decimal, is to give each state as much voting power as there are valid votes expressed in said state - i.e. the popular vote. Every other solution is mathematically inferior.

If you're going to get rid of the EC, you might as well do away with how congressional representation is done -- instead of having 435 people elected to state-based districts, just have 100 people elected in population-based districts that are computer-realigned after each census.
This is just a non-sequitur.

Personally, I think the EC still has value supporting the idea that the US isn't just a 'flat network' of 300M people -- it's a collection of states, made up of 300M people.
And I think people started using "The United States of America" instead of "These United States of America" for a reason. "States rights" should have died in a courthouse in Appomattox 151 years ago.

Now, the main reasons why I think people oppose abolishing the EC are three-fold:

1. (applies largely only in the case of politicians) Opportunism - doing so can be politically dangerous to ones own prospects
2. Ignorance - they hadn't really thought about the issue in a rational manner
3. Tribalism - abandoning it would negatively affect their 'tribe' (in this case the GOP)
 

Teshuvah

Banned
Certainly the EC is not perfect. Churchill's quote that, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others" applies with the EC and many other things in the constitution. That being said, the constitution (including the EC) has served the US pretty well for 200+ years and the EC is far from the biggest problem with the US government. Personally, I think the EC still has value supporting the idea that the US isn't just a 'flat network' of 300M people -- it's a collection of states, made up of 300M people. If you're going to get rid of the EC, you might as well do away with how congressional representation is done -- instead of having 435 people elected to state-based districts, just have 100 people elected in population-based districts that are computer-realigned after each census.
This debate is better suited for its own thread (of which many exist in PolChat) rather than derailing this one.

Getting back to it: how does Vice President Lieberman influence Bush's reaction to 9/11
 

jahenders

Banned
It can't. Allow me to demonstrate

This is false. Even going by the widest possible definition of "around", i.e. winning every vote from the entire state, down to the last God-forsaken hamlet on the other end of the states containing the cities you mentioned, it still not enough to win the election.

They wouldn't, not in a million years, due to the free rider problem: California Democrats could in theory decide to award EC votes proportionally, but all that does is provide an advantage to Republicans, and as long as Republicans in red states don't reciprocate, it would be truelly idiotic for California to go it alone.

The best possible proportionality, with zero rounding issues, where votes match voting population down to the last decimal, is to give each state as much voting power as there are valid votes expressed in said state - i.e. the popular vote. Every other solution is mathematically inferior.

This is just a non-sequitur.

And I think people started using "The United States of America" instead of "These United States of America" for a reason. "States rights" should have died in a courthouse in Appomattox 151 years ago.

Now, the main reasons why I think people oppose abolishing the EC are three-fold:

1. (applies largely only in the case of politicians) Opportunism - doing so can be politically dangerous to ones own prospects
2. Ignorance - they hadn't really thought about the issue in a rational manner
3. Tribalism - abandoning it would negatively affect their 'tribe' (in this case the GOP)

You're partially right, I should have include DC and Ohio in the mix. Then, you could get CA, WA, TX, IL, OH, FL, GA, DC, MD, PA, MA, CT == 271 EVs. Still, you might get that with focusing on less than a dozen (of the 50 states).

I understand why the dominant parties in states might be hesitant to "go first" in changing to proportional allocation of EVs. However, two states do already do this and they haven't felt compelled to change. It really goes back to convincing the states that better representing the will of their people is more important than the advantage the current dominant party enjoys there. That's certainly FAR from easy, but FAR easier than meeting all the requirements for a constitutional amendment.

While pure popular vote proportionality might be the most 'mathematically pure' solutions (no rounding error, no relics of states, etc.), our country wasn't set up, nor is it run, by mathematicians. Nor is determining all points of politics by cold math necessarily the best thing for people. I argue, and you disagree, that there is still merit to the legacy of states reflected by the way EVs are allocated to states now.

The relationship to congressional/house representation is NOT a non-sequitur. You are arguing for the abolishing of our system of electing a president, in part, because it is based on EV allocation by states (senators plus congressional districts) gives "uneven weight" to the votes of people in different states. If you object to THAT state-based system, it would be logical to then support eliminating the state-based foundation of congressional representation (which also gives "uneven weight" for the same reasons).

While the battle cry of "States Rights" might be (justly) diminished, our system of government is still based on the concept of states having certain roles and powers. If you want to rewrite our entire system of government, feel free, but you're trying to "cherry pick" some aspects to kill and some keep.

While opportunism, ignorance, and tribalism are reasons for many things in our country, that's certainly not a complete, nor accurate, list in this case. Another valid reason (despite what you may think) is 4. Constitutionalism - that there were, and are, sound reasons for the state-based structure of the EC. And, as for your #3, it's not just the GOP -- there are cases where Democrats could be hurt nationwide, though they may currently be less common, and cases where local Dem parties would want to protect their impact as way of empowering them relative to the DNC.
 
Top