There is yet another effort underway to amend the Constitution without amending the Constitution. Nate Silver writes about this ingenious plan to, in effect, do away with the electoral college for presidential elections.
You can follow that link to the full details, but the gist is that certain states (totalling at least 270 electoral votes, which constitute a majority of the total) would require their electors to vote for the winner of the nationwide popular vote.
The comments raise all sorts of interesting issues.
One that comes to mind for me is: what would the penalty be on an individual elector who votes against his state's instructions? Looking at the states that Nate mentions, might a Democratic elector from Vermont refuse to vote for a Republican popular-vote-winner, or vice-versa with a Republican elector from Arkansas? The author of one of the comments would send such an elector to jail. Maybe, but that seems doubtful.
This seems less vulnerable to a constitutional challenge than the line-item-veto legislation a few years back, or the current proposal for Congress to grant House representation to the District of Columbia. However, the possibility of a challenge under the Voting Right Act is noted.
I've already expressed my opinion that we should, at the very least, be careful about changing or abolishing the current system, so as to avoid unintended consequences.
I understand why there was a strong reaction to George W. Bush being elected in 2000, despite having lost the popular vote to Al Gore. But, it almost seems as though Bush's opponents think they can go back and change history, if they now change the rules. I'm reminded of a scene from Back to the Future, in which Michael J. Fox's character, having gone back in time to the point where his parents were first dating, starts to disappear every time something happens that might keep them apart. No matter what we do to the presidential election procedure now, we won't get the reverse of what almost happened in that movie. Bush's presidency will not retroactively disappear.
Showing posts with label Electoral College. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Electoral College. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Former Presidents 6: Baby Ruth
Continuing the story I left off here, Grover Cleveland joined a New York law firm after he first left the White House in 1889.
Then, in 1891, Cleveland, and his young wife Frances, did something that ended up giving them an odd sort of immortality. Their daughter, Ruth, was born. According to the some accounts, at least, that inspired a widely-misunderstood name of a candy bar. A website that markets the candy carries the following explanation:
Some, however, are skeptical. Either way, their family is still talked about, more than a century after Ruth's untimely death.
But, I digress.
In 1892, the parties set up a rematch between Cleveland and the Republican incumbent President Benjamin Harrison.
One aspect of that 1892 campaign that intrigues those of us in the Minnesota diaspora who are interested in political history, is that that year's Republican National Convention was the only one held in that state, until that party returned in 2008, and gathered in St. Paul. I wrote about that, here and here. Is it mere coincidence that both candidates nominated in the Gopher State, Harrison in 1892, and John McCain in 2008, lost the general election?
Tariffs were an issue in the 1892 campaign. At that time, the Democrats were the free-trade party, while the Republicans led the charge for protectionism. By now, that situation has largely been reversed. Congressional votes on international trade don't tend to fall exactly along party lines but, for the most part, the Republicans are now the free-trade party.
Advocates of an inflationary monetary policy, an issue that would get even more attention four years later, were fighting against supporters of the status quo, i.e., the gold standard. James Weaver ran a strong third-party campaign on the Populist ticket, largely on an anti-gold standard, a.k.a. free silver, platform.
Cleveland won a plurality of the popular vote, as he had in 1884 and 1888. But, unlike 1888, he also won an Electoral College majority in 1892. Cleveland took back his home state of New York, which Harrison had carried four years earlier.
Weaver won 22 electoral votes in some western states, but that was not enough to deadlock the Electoral College.
It was all downhill from there, for the once and future president. The so-called Panic of 1893 ushered in an economic depression. Apparently, the phenomenon of presidents getting too much credit for a good economy, and too much blame for economic problems, existed as much then as it does now. Unemployment was still in double digits at the time of the next presidential election, in 1896, and the Republicans, under William McKinley, took back the White House, which they would not relinquish until 16 years later.
Cleveland lived in retirement in New Jersey, until his death in 1908.
He is the only president to have served non-consecutive terms, and he set a record for consecutive popular-vote victories (three) that stood until Franklin Roosevelt won four consecutive popular and electoral vote majorities, between 1932 and 1944.
This website (and, if you see it on the Internet, it must be true) says that an Act of Congress settled the question of whether Cleveland would have two presidential numbers, i.e., that he would be called both the 22nd and 24th president.
Then, in 1891, Cleveland, and his young wife Frances, did something that ended up giving them an odd sort of immortality. Their daughter, Ruth, was born. According to the some accounts, at least, that inspired a widely-misunderstood name of a candy bar. A website that markets the candy carries the following explanation:
Introduced in the early 1920s by Curtiss Candy Company, Baby Ruth was said to be named after President Grover Cleveland's daughter, Ruth. At the time, the child was endearingly referred to as "Baby Ruth". The trademark was patterned after
the engraved lettering used on a medallion struck for the 1893 Chicago World's Colombian Exposition. The image pictured the President, his wife, and young daughter Baby Ruth.
Some, however, are skeptical. Either way, their family is still talked about, more than a century after Ruth's untimely death.
But, I digress.
In 1892, the parties set up a rematch between Cleveland and the Republican incumbent President Benjamin Harrison.
One aspect of that 1892 campaign that intrigues those of us in the Minnesota diaspora who are interested in political history, is that that year's Republican National Convention was the only one held in that state, until that party returned in 2008, and gathered in St. Paul. I wrote about that, here and here. Is it mere coincidence that both candidates nominated in the Gopher State, Harrison in 1892, and John McCain in 2008, lost the general election?
Tariffs were an issue in the 1892 campaign. At that time, the Democrats were the free-trade party, while the Republicans led the charge for protectionism. By now, that situation has largely been reversed. Congressional votes on international trade don't tend to fall exactly along party lines but, for the most part, the Republicans are now the free-trade party.
Advocates of an inflationary monetary policy, an issue that would get even more attention four years later, were fighting against supporters of the status quo, i.e., the gold standard. James Weaver ran a strong third-party campaign on the Populist ticket, largely on an anti-gold standard, a.k.a. free silver, platform.
Cleveland won a plurality of the popular vote, as he had in 1884 and 1888. But, unlike 1888, he also won an Electoral College majority in 1892. Cleveland took back his home state of New York, which Harrison had carried four years earlier.
Weaver won 22 electoral votes in some western states, but that was not enough to deadlock the Electoral College.
It was all downhill from there, for the once and future president. The so-called Panic of 1893 ushered in an economic depression. Apparently, the phenomenon of presidents getting too much credit for a good economy, and too much blame for economic problems, existed as much then as it does now. Unemployment was still in double digits at the time of the next presidential election, in 1896, and the Republicans, under William McKinley, took back the White House, which they would not relinquish until 16 years later.
Cleveland lived in retirement in New Jersey, until his death in 1908.
He is the only president to have served non-consecutive terms, and he set a record for consecutive popular-vote victories (three) that stood until Franklin Roosevelt won four consecutive popular and electoral vote majorities, between 1932 and 1944.
This website (and, if you see it on the Internet, it must be true) says that an Act of Congress settled the question of whether Cleveland would have two presidential numbers, i.e., that he would be called both the 22nd and 24th president.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Inauguration 1877: Seems Like Yesterday
The transition period between a presidential election and inauguration is about 10 weeks, under the modern schedule. A president-elect has so many details to attend to during that period that the time probably seems to move very quickly. When he stands up to take the oath of office, I suppose he thinks "it seems like only yesterday, that I found out I had been elected".
In 1877, it seemed that way for a reason. Rutherford Hayes took the oath on March 3 (because the 4th was a Sunday). A dispute about the outcome of the 1876 election had been resolved on March 2.
Hayes, who was then governor of Ohio, was nominated by the Republican Party. Governor Samuel Tilden of New York was the Democratic nominee.
Tilden won 51% of the popular vote, but the candidates' electoral vote totals were very close. There were disputes about the electoral votes in four states including, in what was a foreshadowing of events 124 years later, Florida.
A 15-member body called the Electoral Commission was appointed to resolve the disputes. It consisted of five members of each house of Congress, and five Supreme Court justices. In theory, the commission was to consist of seven Republicans, seven Democrats, and one independent. But, apparently the "independent" was really a Republican.
The commission voted along party lines to award the disputed electoral votes to Hayes.
The Civil War was a very recent memory at that time. Therefore, a fear that violence would ensue from a disputed result seemed very real. However, when Hayes repeated his oath in a public ceremony on March 5, all was peaceful.
During his single term as president, Hayes ended the military occupation of the southern states. That effectively ended Reconstruction, and set the stage for the "Jim Crow" regime of segregation and denial of African Americans' civil rights in those states, that were not effectively addressed by the federal government until the 1960s. The notion that that action by Hayes was part of a deal to secure southern electoral votes is still debated.
In 1877, it seemed that way for a reason. Rutherford Hayes took the oath on March 3 (because the 4th was a Sunday). A dispute about the outcome of the 1876 election had been resolved on March 2.
Hayes, who was then governor of Ohio, was nominated by the Republican Party. Governor Samuel Tilden of New York was the Democratic nominee.
Tilden won 51% of the popular vote, but the candidates' electoral vote totals were very close. There were disputes about the electoral votes in four states including, in what was a foreshadowing of events 124 years later, Florida.
A 15-member body called the Electoral Commission was appointed to resolve the disputes. It consisted of five members of each house of Congress, and five Supreme Court justices. In theory, the commission was to consist of seven Republicans, seven Democrats, and one independent. But, apparently the "independent" was really a Republican.
The commission voted along party lines to award the disputed electoral votes to Hayes.
The Civil War was a very recent memory at that time. Therefore, a fear that violence would ensue from a disputed result seemed very real. However, when Hayes repeated his oath in a public ceremony on March 5, all was peaceful.
During his single term as president, Hayes ended the military occupation of the southern states. That effectively ended Reconstruction, and set the stage for the "Jim Crow" regime of segregation and denial of African Americans' civil rights in those states, that were not effectively addressed by the federal government until the 1960s. The notion that that action by Hayes was part of a deal to secure southern electoral votes is still debated.
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Numbers and States
Politico addresses a process that happens in each decade, and is coming up soon: reapportioning congressional seats among the states based on population data from the decennial census.
For many decades now, the American population, and therefore political power, has been shifting to the south and west. And the study described in that article indicates that that trend will continue.
There are a couple of anomalies, though. Two Sunbelt states, Louisiana and California, could each lose one seat. I assume the Louisiana situation is tied in to population loss in New Orleans resulting from Hurricane Katrina. California has gone into a relative decline, which I think can be traced in large part to an exodus to neighboring states to seek a lower cost of living, and cutbacks among defense contractors in Southern California.
But, if that happens, it won't put too much of a dent in California's dominance. If you compare it to my current home state of Pennsylvania, California's numbers have skyrocketed over the past century. Based on the 1910 census, California was allocated 11 House seats, while Pennsylvania had 36. After the most recent census, that of 2000, California had jumped to 53, and Pennsylvania had slumped to 19. (If you're interested in more detail on that, the House publishes the historical data here.)
There are at least two major political implications of all this:
All of the states that are large enough to have more than one House seat, redraw their congressional district boundaries after each census. Court decisions from the 1960s onward put stringent requirements on that process, which had been a bit more lax at other times in American history. That always entails a difficult battle in each state legislature, but it's even more of a knock-down-drag-out fight when a state loses representation.
A loss of congressional representation entails a reduction of a state's number of electors in the Electoral College that votes for president and vice president. Therefore, it results in a reduction of a state's clout at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.
For many decades now, the American population, and therefore political power, has been shifting to the south and west. And the study described in that article indicates that that trend will continue.
There are a couple of anomalies, though. Two Sunbelt states, Louisiana and California, could each lose one seat. I assume the Louisiana situation is tied in to population loss in New Orleans resulting from Hurricane Katrina. California has gone into a relative decline, which I think can be traced in large part to an exodus to neighboring states to seek a lower cost of living, and cutbacks among defense contractors in Southern California.
But, if that happens, it won't put too much of a dent in California's dominance. If you compare it to my current home state of Pennsylvania, California's numbers have skyrocketed over the past century. Based on the 1910 census, California was allocated 11 House seats, while Pennsylvania had 36. After the most recent census, that of 2000, California had jumped to 53, and Pennsylvania had slumped to 19. (If you're interested in more detail on that, the House publishes the historical data here.)
There are at least two major political implications of all this:
All of the states that are large enough to have more than one House seat, redraw their congressional district boundaries after each census. Court decisions from the 1960s onward put stringent requirements on that process, which had been a bit more lax at other times in American history. That always entails a difficult battle in each state legislature, but it's even more of a knock-down-drag-out fight when a state loses representation.
A loss of congressional representation entails a reduction of a state's number of electors in the Electoral College that votes for president and vice president. Therefore, it results in a reduction of a state's clout at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
The least surprising story of the year
Barack Obama was elected president yesterday. The members of the Electoral College met in their respective state capitals, to cast the only votes that really count for president and vice president. While the electoral votes won't be officially tallied until January 6 in a joint session of Congress, there were no reports of "faithless electors" casting a vote for anyone other than the candidate they were pledged to support. Therefore, Obama should get his total of 365 electoral votes, to 173 for McCain.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Election Day
Rise and shine, it's election day!
But it's less complicated this time, because only 538 voters need to find their polling places. However, those 538 will need to travel a greater distance, on average, than the rest of us did last month because, this time, the polling places will be the various state capitals.
What all this is leading up to is: today the Electoral College meets and elects the president of the United States. The result, of course, is a foregone conclusion. The majority of the electors will ratify the decision that we collectively made last month. They will elect Barack Obama.
The only open question is whether any electors will stray from the fold, and vote for someone other than their party's nominee. That has happened on rare occasions. Two examples:
In 1972, a Republican elector from Virginia named Roger MacBride voted for the Libertarian candidate John Hospers for president. Of course, it made no difference in the outcome. Richard Nixon had won a landslide victory, and still received 520 electoral votes, which was far more than necessary for victory. But MacBride did make an impact, in that his stunt created more publicity than the fledgling Libertarian Party had previously received. Its vote total went up in subsequent elections, but has generally stayed below 1%.
In 2004, one Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party elector from Minnesota voted for John Edwards for president. Edwards was the Democratic vice-presidential nominee; that elector was supposed to vote for John Kerry for president. No one owned up to it. That vote is generally assumed to have been a mistake in filling out the ballot paper. While the 2004 election was much closer than that of 1972, Kerry fell a few votes short of a majority, so losing one additional vote did not affect the outcome.
We'll find out later on today, whether any such anomalies pop up this year.
But it's less complicated this time, because only 538 voters need to find their polling places. However, those 538 will need to travel a greater distance, on average, than the rest of us did last month because, this time, the polling places will be the various state capitals.
What all this is leading up to is: today the Electoral College meets and elects the president of the United States. The result, of course, is a foregone conclusion. The majority of the electors will ratify the decision that we collectively made last month. They will elect Barack Obama.
The only open question is whether any electors will stray from the fold, and vote for someone other than their party's nominee. That has happened on rare occasions. Two examples:
In 1972, a Republican elector from Virginia named Roger MacBride voted for the Libertarian candidate John Hospers for president. Of course, it made no difference in the outcome. Richard Nixon had won a landslide victory, and still received 520 electoral votes, which was far more than necessary for victory. But MacBride did make an impact, in that his stunt created more publicity than the fledgling Libertarian Party had previously received. Its vote total went up in subsequent elections, but has generally stayed below 1%.
In 2004, one Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party elector from Minnesota voted for John Edwards for president. Edwards was the Democratic vice-presidential nominee; that elector was supposed to vote for John Kerry for president. No one owned up to it. That vote is generally assumed to have been a mistake in filling out the ballot paper. While the 2004 election was much closer than that of 1972, Kerry fell a few votes short of a majority, so losing one additional vote did not affect the outcome.
We'll find out later on today, whether any such anomalies pop up this year.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Electoral College 5: What Happens Next?
Shortly after 11 pm EST, Tuesday night, Brian Williams, Charlie Gibson, et al., announced that Barack Obama had been elected president. But, of course, that is not the official announcement. The official announcement will be made by none other than Dick Cheney.
Unlike 2000, with this year's presidential election, all activity of the electoral college between now and the date the vice president announces the result to a joint session of Congress (January 6, 2009) will be merely a formality. This time, any recount in the state with the tightest contest, North Carolina, cannot affect the result. Obama has won well over 50% of the electors in states where the result is undisputed.
Here is a press release from the National Archives, detailing the process whereby the electoral college formally elects the president.
You thought election day was November 4? Actually, it's December 15. That's the date on which the electoral college meets, state by state, as I described here.
Then, they send their vote totals to Congress, which opens them up and tabulates them in a joint session, shortly after they reconvene at the beginning of January.
The president of the Senate, i.e., the vice president of the United States, announces the result to the lawmakers. In 1989, George H.W. Bush announced that the new president was ... George H.W. Bush. But it has more often gone in the other direction. In 2001, for example, Al Gore made his own defeat official.
I'm guessing that, with this election, at least some Obama supporters will consider it to be delicious irony that their archenemy Cheney will formally announce Obama's election.
Unlike 2000, with this year's presidential election, all activity of the electoral college between now and the date the vice president announces the result to a joint session of Congress (January 6, 2009) will be merely a formality. This time, any recount in the state with the tightest contest, North Carolina, cannot affect the result. Obama has won well over 50% of the electors in states where the result is undisputed.
Here is a press release from the National Archives, detailing the process whereby the electoral college formally elects the president.
You thought election day was November 4? Actually, it's December 15. That's the date on which the electoral college meets, state by state, as I described here.
Then, they send their vote totals to Congress, which opens them up and tabulates them in a joint session, shortly after they reconvene at the beginning of January.
The president of the Senate, i.e., the vice president of the United States, announces the result to the lawmakers. In 1989, George H.W. Bush announced that the new president was ... George H.W. Bush. But it has more often gone in the other direction. In 2001, for example, Al Gore made his own defeat official.
I'm guessing that, with this election, at least some Obama supporters will consider it to be delicious irony that their archenemy Cheney will formally announce Obama's election.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
President-Elect Obama
Polls have closed on the Pacific coast. Networks are now making enough projections to put Barack Obama over 270. Congratulations to the next President of the United States.
Virginia Electoral Votes
Fox calls Virginia for Obama. The other networks' websites show it as too close to call. If Fox is correct, then McCain needs to win California in order to have any chance at 270. McCain trailed by more than 20 points in Golden State polls. It's as close to over as it can be. Unlike baseball, Yogi, this one is over even though it's not over.
Obama -- Ohio
Fox has projected Ohio for Obama. That makes it just about impossible for McCain to win. ABC has also called Ohio for Obama.
Still No Surprises
With several states with 8pm poll closing times having been called by the networks, all of the calls so far are in line with my predictions. The most significant call in the presidential race so far is here in Pennsylvania. ABC and NBC have projected Obama as the Pennsylvania winner. Without PA, McCain needs just about every battleground state, including Ohio, Missouri, Virginia, North Carolina and Florida, in order to win an upset.
So far, Obama has 71% of the popular vote!
It's one of the great traditions of American presidential politics. Every single one of the registered voters in Dixville Notch, New Hampshire, (21 of them, this year) casts a vote shortly after midnight, so they can be tallied and announced to the world.
This year's tally: Obama 15, McCain 6.
But Obama and his supporters can, as they say, curb their enthusiasm, according to Nate Silver at the 538 blog. He presents a graph showing no correlation between Dixville Notch's vote and that of New Hampshire as a whole.
And it will inevitably be disappointing for Obama to watch his percentage of the popular vote decrease as the day and night go on. If the polls are accurate, of course, it's not really bad news, because he can expect to end up over 50% and, more importantly, over 50% in the electoral college.
According to past election results listed in Dixville Notch's Wikipedia entry, it has generally voted Republican during the past half-century. In what seems to me a quirky exception, Hubert Humphrey, in 1968, was the only previous Democratic nominee to win a plurality of the votes. Richard Nixon outpolled Humphrey in the entire state by 52% to 44%.
This year's tally: Obama 15, McCain 6.
But Obama and his supporters can, as they say, curb their enthusiasm, according to Nate Silver at the 538 blog. He presents a graph showing no correlation between Dixville Notch's vote and that of New Hampshire as a whole.
And it will inevitably be disappointing for Obama to watch his percentage of the popular vote decrease as the day and night go on. If the polls are accurate, of course, it's not really bad news, because he can expect to end up over 50% and, more importantly, over 50% in the electoral college.
According to past election results listed in Dixville Notch's Wikipedia entry, it has generally voted Republican during the past half-century. In what seems to me a quirky exception, Hubert Humphrey, in 1968, was the only previous Democratic nominee to win a plurality of the votes. Richard Nixon outpolled Humphrey in the entire state by 52% to 44%.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Prediction: The Electoral College
I predict that Barack Obama will win the presidential election by a margin of 325 electoral votes, to 213 for John McCain.
There seem to be indications that marginal states are swinging back to McCain, but not enough to change the result. The best-case scenario for Obama has been somewhere in the neighborhood of 350 to 400 electoral votes. But as the time draws near, I'm putting my prediction at the bottom end of Obama's range. And who knows? I might even be right.
That breaks down by state as follows:
Obama (325):
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Hawaii
Illinois
Iowa
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Dakota
Ohio
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
Wisconsin
McCain (213):
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Mississippi
Montana
Nebraska
North Carolina
Oklahoma
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
West Virginia
Wyoming
There seem to be indications that marginal states are swinging back to McCain, but not enough to change the result. The best-case scenario for Obama has been somewhere in the neighborhood of 350 to 400 electoral votes. But as the time draws near, I'm putting my prediction at the bottom end of Obama's range. And who knows? I might even be right.
That breaks down by state as follows:
Obama (325):
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Hawaii
Illinois
Iowa
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Dakota
Ohio
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
Wisconsin
McCain (213):
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Mississippi
Montana
Nebraska
North Carolina
Oklahoma
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
West Virginia
Wyoming
Saturday, November 1, 2008
The End Is Near
Watch this space, over the next 24-48 hours or so, for:
- State-by-state prediction of the U.S. Senate races.
- State-by-state prediction of the presidential election.
- A post in which I step out from behind my neutral blogging style, and tell for whom I'm going to vote for president, and why.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Falling Into The Grand Canyon?
One strange phenomenon in this year's presidential election is the relatively slim margin by which John McCain leads in the polls in his home state of Arizona. Real Clear Politics lists polls showing McCain ahead by a bit more than the margin of error, but still only in single digits. And this report in Politico mentions a poll with only a four-point McCain lead.
Not that it would be unprecedented for a presidential candidate to fail to carry his home state.
The last such case was in 2000, when George W. Bush beat Al Gore in Tennessee.
In 1972, South Dakota Sen. George McGovern, the Democratic presidential nominee, lost his home state (as well as 48 others) to President Richard Nixon. But McGovern, who lost in a crushing landslide, had a higher percentage of the vote in South Dakota (45.5%), which has generally voted Republican in presidential elections, than his dismal 37.5% of the nationwide popular vote.
In 1968, Nixon was, I believe, the only winning candidate ever to fail to carry his home state. But, in that decade in which the asterisk was so controversial in baseball, an asterisk needs to be added to that observation about Nixon. Although he was a New York resident in 1968, and he lost that state to Hubert Humphrey, he was really more a Californian than a New Yorker. Nixon moved to New York after his 1962 defeat for governor of California, and was a partner in a law firm there, until he became president in 1969. But all of his congressional and gubernatorial campaigns were in California, and he re-established his official residence in California shortly after the 1968 election. He did, however, subsequently return to the New York area, spending his last years in North Jersey.
The only previous major-party presidential nominee from Arizona, Barry Goldwater, carried very few states in his campaign against Lyndon Johnson, in 1964. However, he did win the electoral votes of Arizona, but just barely. But that was only worth five electoral votes to Goldwater. Due to subsequent growth, Arizona now has 10 electoral votes.
Adlai Stevenson, who was badly beaten by Dwight Eisenhower in 1952, did not let that discourage him. He came back for more in 1956. He lost Illinois, the state of which he had been governor, to Eisenhower, by large margins in both 1952 and 1956. It appears that that will not happen to another Illinoisan, the current Democratic nominee.
One last trip down memory lane (no, I'm not actually old enough to remember this): in 1944, one of the candidates had to lose his home state, because they were both New Yorkers, a former governor, President Franklin Roosevelt, and the incumbent Governor Thomas Dewey. Roosevelt defeated Dewey, both in New York, and nationwide.
Not that it would be unprecedented for a presidential candidate to fail to carry his home state.
The last such case was in 2000, when George W. Bush beat Al Gore in Tennessee.
In 1972, South Dakota Sen. George McGovern, the Democratic presidential nominee, lost his home state (as well as 48 others) to President Richard Nixon. But McGovern, who lost in a crushing landslide, had a higher percentage of the vote in South Dakota (45.5%), which has generally voted Republican in presidential elections, than his dismal 37.5% of the nationwide popular vote.
In 1968, Nixon was, I believe, the only winning candidate ever to fail to carry his home state. But, in that decade in which the asterisk was so controversial in baseball, an asterisk needs to be added to that observation about Nixon. Although he was a New York resident in 1968, and he lost that state to Hubert Humphrey, he was really more a Californian than a New Yorker. Nixon moved to New York after his 1962 defeat for governor of California, and was a partner in a law firm there, until he became president in 1969. But all of his congressional and gubernatorial campaigns were in California, and he re-established his official residence in California shortly after the 1968 election. He did, however, subsequently return to the New York area, spending his last years in North Jersey.
The only previous major-party presidential nominee from Arizona, Barry Goldwater, carried very few states in his campaign against Lyndon Johnson, in 1964. However, he did win the electoral votes of Arizona, but just barely. But that was only worth five electoral votes to Goldwater. Due to subsequent growth, Arizona now has 10 electoral votes.
Adlai Stevenson, who was badly beaten by Dwight Eisenhower in 1952, did not let that discourage him. He came back for more in 1956. He lost Illinois, the state of which he had been governor, to Eisenhower, by large margins in both 1952 and 1956. It appears that that will not happen to another Illinoisan, the current Democratic nominee.
One last trip down memory lane (no, I'm not actually old enough to remember this): in 1944, one of the candidates had to lose his home state, because they were both New Yorkers, a former governor, President Franklin Roosevelt, and the incumbent Governor Thomas Dewey. Roosevelt defeated Dewey, both in New York, and nationwide.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Electoral College 4: Bias?
Is there a pro-Republican bias in the electoral college?
I wrote here about the manner in which the allocation of electoral votes to the states, as prescribed by the Constitution, favors the smaller states.
In 2004, George Bush's electoral votes came disproportionately from the smaller states. The average Bush state had 9.23 electoral votes, while the average Kerry state had 13.1. Even if California (which gave 55 electoral votes to Kerry) is removed from the calculation, the Kerry states' average is still higher than Bush's, at 10.8.
To measure how much effect that had on the outcome, I notionally allocated electoral votes to the states in proportion to their population. In other words, according to their representation in the U.S. House of Representatives, rather than their total of representatives and senators. There are still some rounding errors, but that removes the bias toward the smaller states. I allocated one elector to the District of Columbia.
If electors had been allocated on that basis in 2004, Bush would still have won a majority in the electoral college, by 224 to 212. But it reduces Bush's percentage of the electoral votes from the actual 53.16% to 51.38%.
Applying that same calculation to the 2000 presidential election results changes the outcome. Gore would have won a majority in the electoral college, 225 to 211.
This year, Obama might pick up some of the small western states that have often voted Republican in the past, such as North Dakota, Montana, Nevada and New Mexico. So maybe the math will work out differently this year. And, if the 2008 election results in a long-term partisan realignment, as some speculate, perhaps any Republican bias in the electoral college will not be a permanent factor.
I wrote here about the manner in which the allocation of electoral votes to the states, as prescribed by the Constitution, favors the smaller states.
In 2004, George Bush's electoral votes came disproportionately from the smaller states. The average Bush state had 9.23 electoral votes, while the average Kerry state had 13.1. Even if California (which gave 55 electoral votes to Kerry) is removed from the calculation, the Kerry states' average is still higher than Bush's, at 10.8.
To measure how much effect that had on the outcome, I notionally allocated electoral votes to the states in proportion to their population. In other words, according to their representation in the U.S. House of Representatives, rather than their total of representatives and senators. There are still some rounding errors, but that removes the bias toward the smaller states. I allocated one elector to the District of Columbia.
If electors had been allocated on that basis in 2004, Bush would still have won a majority in the electoral college, by 224 to 212. But it reduces Bush's percentage of the electoral votes from the actual 53.16% to 51.38%.
Applying that same calculation to the 2000 presidential election results changes the outcome. Gore would have won a majority in the electoral college, 225 to 211.
This year, Obama might pick up some of the small western states that have often voted Republican in the past, such as North Dakota, Montana, Nevada and New Mexico. So maybe the math will work out differently this year. And, if the 2008 election results in a long-term partisan realignment, as some speculate, perhaps any Republican bias in the electoral college will not be a permanent factor.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Electoral College 3: Why does it still exist?
I'm picking up on a series from a while back, regarding the electoral college. In previous posts in this series, I've written about the manner in which the electoral college lost its original purpose more than 200 years ago. That purpose was to limit participation in presidential elections to a small elite group who would exercise their independent judgment.
In light of that history, why do we continue to elect presidents that way? Why don't we run those elections the same as virtually all other American elections? Why don't we just all vote for president, and award victory to the candidate with the most votes (perhaps subject to a runoff, if no one candidate gets more than 50%)?
I think the reasons lie with the system of allocating electoral votes to the states.
For one thing, smaller states get a mathematical advantage from the allocation formula. Each state's electoral vote total is equal to its total representation in both houses of Congress. California has 53 House seats. Wyoming, with the smallest population, has one. Adding California's two Senate seats raises their total to 55; in other words, it increases the number by a factor of 3.8%. But adding Wyoming's two Senate seats triples its electoral vote total.
Another way of looking at that is that, when we consider the ratio of electoral votes to population, a Wyoming resident's vote has about 3.8 times as much weight as a Californian's.
Abolition of the electoral college would require a constitutional amendment, which could be blocked by as few as 13 states. So, even if such an amendment passed both houses of Congress (it would be likely to be voted down by the Senate for similar reasons), opposition from small states would probably keep it well short of the required 38 states' ratification.
Another point, beyond the simple mathematics, is that the electoral college maintains a role for the states, per se, in the presidential election process. Most states have a "winner take all" system; in other words, the candidate with a plurality of the popular vote in each such state gets all of that state's electoral votes. So, a winning candidate needs to amass a sufficient coalition of states, rather than a coalition of individual voters.
One effect of that is that a purely regional candidacy cannot succeed. I wrote here and here about how third-party candidacies of southern segregationists fared in the electoral college, in 1948 and 1968. Strom Thurmond and George Wallace won the electoral votes of some southern states, but in neither case was the total anywhere near a majority.
However, Wallace hoped (in vain, as it turned out) to play "spoiler", by denying both Richard Nixon and Hubert Humphrey an electoral college majority in 1968. Wallace wanted to strike a bargain to slow down federal civil rights actions, while his hoped-for electoral deadlock was being resolved by the House of Representatives. But Nixon received a majority of the electoral votes.
But it's possible that a strong third-party candidacy could bring about that scenario, which bring about more public debate about the electoral college system.
I have no profound conclusion to offer as to whether the electoral college system should be, and/or ever will be, abolished. My main point is that the question is more complicated that some make it out to be. I don't consider it self-evident that direct election is necessarily the best method for every office. And I don't think we should rush to change a system that has been in place for more than two centuries, because of many people's disillusionment with the result of the presidential election of eight years ago.
In light of that history, why do we continue to elect presidents that way? Why don't we run those elections the same as virtually all other American elections? Why don't we just all vote for president, and award victory to the candidate with the most votes (perhaps subject to a runoff, if no one candidate gets more than 50%)?
I think the reasons lie with the system of allocating electoral votes to the states.
For one thing, smaller states get a mathematical advantage from the allocation formula. Each state's electoral vote total is equal to its total representation in both houses of Congress. California has 53 House seats. Wyoming, with the smallest population, has one. Adding California's two Senate seats raises their total to 55; in other words, it increases the number by a factor of 3.8%. But adding Wyoming's two Senate seats triples its electoral vote total.
Another way of looking at that is that, when we consider the ratio of electoral votes to population, a Wyoming resident's vote has about 3.8 times as much weight as a Californian's.
Abolition of the electoral college would require a constitutional amendment, which could be blocked by as few as 13 states. So, even if such an amendment passed both houses of Congress (it would be likely to be voted down by the Senate for similar reasons), opposition from small states would probably keep it well short of the required 38 states' ratification.
Another point, beyond the simple mathematics, is that the electoral college maintains a role for the states, per se, in the presidential election process. Most states have a "winner take all" system; in other words, the candidate with a plurality of the popular vote in each such state gets all of that state's electoral votes. So, a winning candidate needs to amass a sufficient coalition of states, rather than a coalition of individual voters.
One effect of that is that a purely regional candidacy cannot succeed. I wrote here and here about how third-party candidacies of southern segregationists fared in the electoral college, in 1948 and 1968. Strom Thurmond and George Wallace won the electoral votes of some southern states, but in neither case was the total anywhere near a majority.
However, Wallace hoped (in vain, as it turned out) to play "spoiler", by denying both Richard Nixon and Hubert Humphrey an electoral college majority in 1968. Wallace wanted to strike a bargain to slow down federal civil rights actions, while his hoped-for electoral deadlock was being resolved by the House of Representatives. But Nixon received a majority of the electoral votes.
But it's possible that a strong third-party candidacy could bring about that scenario, which bring about more public debate about the electoral college system.
I have no profound conclusion to offer as to whether the electoral college system should be, and/or ever will be, abolished. My main point is that the question is more complicated that some make it out to be. I don't consider it self-evident that direct election is necessarily the best method for every office. And I don't think we should rush to change a system that has been in place for more than two centuries, because of many people's disillusionment with the result of the presidential election of eight years ago.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
12 Days To Go
Looking at state-by state polls, things have not changed much since I posted this, a week ago. That's good news for Obama and bad news for McCain. Obama is still projected to win by a comfortable margin in the electoral college, getting somewhere in the neighborhood of 360 electoral votes.
According to the poll averages published in Real Clear Politics, there has been some shifting in key states. Obama's lead in Florida has fallen from 4.8 points to 1 point. But Obama has increased his lead in Ohio from 3.4 points to 6 points. McCain probably needs to win both of those states to have any chance for victory.
Obama has solidified his lead in several northern states where McCain had, earlier in the year, been thought to have a chance. Those include Minnesota (52.8%-40.5%), Wisconsin (51.6%-40.2%), Michigan (56%-38%) and Washington (54.7%-39.7%). Those four states have a total of 48 electoral votes.
In Pennsylvania (21 electoral votes), Obama's lead has decreased slightly, but he still leads by 51.3% to 40.8%. I can confirm that McCain and Palin have been playing a full court press here in Pennsylvania, and it seems to be having some effect. But it seems doubtful that they can turn it around.
According to the poll averages published in Real Clear Politics, there has been some shifting in key states. Obama's lead in Florida has fallen from 4.8 points to 1 point. But Obama has increased his lead in Ohio from 3.4 points to 6 points. McCain probably needs to win both of those states to have any chance for victory.
Obama has solidified his lead in several northern states where McCain had, earlier in the year, been thought to have a chance. Those include Minnesota (52.8%-40.5%), Wisconsin (51.6%-40.2%), Michigan (56%-38%) and Washington (54.7%-39.7%). Those four states have a total of 48 electoral votes.
In Pennsylvania (21 electoral votes), Obama's lead has decreased slightly, but he still leads by 51.3% to 40.8%. I can confirm that McCain and Palin have been playing a full court press here in Pennsylvania, and it seems to be having some effect. But it seems doubtful that they can turn it around.
Friday, October 17, 2008
The Bradley Effect
As the polls continue to show a significant lead for Barack Obama, some question whether those polls are distorted by something called the "Bradley Effect".
In 1982, the Democratic Party nominated an African American man named Tom Bradley for governor of California. Both pre-election polls, and election-day exit polls, showed Bradley ahead of his Republican opponent, George Deukmejian. But, when the vote count was completed, Deukmejian emerged as the winner.
Some speculate that a certain number of voters who did not want to vote for Bradley, because of his race, were reluctant to reveal their true intention to the pollsters. Therefore, those polls overestimated the degree of support for Bradley.
Are Obama's poll numbers similarly inflated?
It seems to me there's no way to get at that answer for sure. What are pollsters supposed to do? When someone says they're going to vote for Obama, should the follow-up question be: "did you lie?"
Here is an article by someone who says he was involved with that 1982 California campaign, arguing that the Bradley Effect does
not exist.
And here, Democratic political consultant Donna Brazile, backs up that Republican argument.
Many bloggers apply that old phrase "media hype" to this whole idea. They're referring to writings such as this blog post by an ABC-TV reporter, carrying on the speculation. Are the TV news people looking for ways to maintain interest in a race whose outcome seems more certain with every passing day? It's quite possible.
Some say the size of the distortion is around six percentage points. If I apply that rule of thumb to the analysis I published yesterday of Obama's lead in individual states, i.e., reduce Obama's lead by six points in each state, he still wins with 277 electoral votes.
In 1982, the Democratic Party nominated an African American man named Tom Bradley for governor of California. Both pre-election polls, and election-day exit polls, showed Bradley ahead of his Republican opponent, George Deukmejian. But, when the vote count was completed, Deukmejian emerged as the winner.
Some speculate that a certain number of voters who did not want to vote for Bradley, because of his race, were reluctant to reveal their true intention to the pollsters. Therefore, those polls overestimated the degree of support for Bradley.
Are Obama's poll numbers similarly inflated?
It seems to me there's no way to get at that answer for sure. What are pollsters supposed to do? When someone says they're going to vote for Obama, should the follow-up question be: "did you lie?"
Here is an article by someone who says he was involved with that 1982 California campaign, arguing that the Bradley Effect does
not exist.
And here, Democratic political consultant Donna Brazile, backs up that Republican argument.
Many bloggers apply that old phrase "media hype" to this whole idea. They're referring to writings such as this blog post by an ABC-TV reporter, carrying on the speculation. Are the TV news people looking for ways to maintain interest in a race whose outcome seems more certain with every passing day? It's quite possible.
Some say the size of the distortion is around six percentage points. If I apply that rule of thumb to the analysis I published yesterday of Obama's lead in individual states, i.e., reduce Obama's lead by six points in each state, he still wins with 277 electoral votes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
