[EL] Check out Could Pennsylvania Republicans end the electoral college as we know

[Bonin, Adam C.]

Here's a sortable chart for the 2000, 2004, and 2008 results by congressional district: http://www.swingstateproject.com/diary/4161/

In the closely divided 2000 election, Bush had 8 districts in which he had 70%+ of the vote.  Gore had 43.

Put another way: in districts in which the winner had 55% or less of the vote, 99 were won by Bush and 68 by Gore.  Yes, obviously, if you change the goal from winner-take-all-per-state to a CD race, folks campaign differently, but you're starting from a terrain on which GOP candidates are inherently favored and will be more so in certain states given the current gerrymandering process.

-----Original Message-----
From: Gaddie, Ronald K. [mailto:rkgaddie at ou.edu]
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 9:34 AM
To: Josiah Neeley; Bonin, Adam C.; 'JBoppjr at aol.com'; 'rhasen at law.uci.edu'; 'law-election at uci.edu'
Subject: RE: [EL] Check out Could Pennsylvania Republicans end the electoral college as we know

What he means is that the Democratic districts are more homogeneous in terms of voters.  But, this is also counterbalanced by the fact that core Democratic districts are usually lower-turnout constituencies.  Jim Campbell called this the 'Cheap Seat' phenomenon in his book of the same name.


Ronald Keith Gaddie
Professor of Political Science
Editor, Social Science Quarterly
The University of Oklahoma
455 West Lindsey Street, Room 222
Norman, OK  73019-2001
Phone 405-325-4989
Fax 405-325-0718
E-mail: rkgaddie at ou.edu
http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/G/Ronald.K.Gaddie-1
http://socialsciencequarterly.org

________________________________________
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] on behalf of Josiah Neeley [JNeeley at bopplaw.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 8:27 AM
To: Bonin, Adam C.; 'JBoppjr at aol.com'; 'rhasen at law.uci.edu'; 'law-election at uci.edu'
Subject: Re: [EL] Check out Could Pennsylvania Republicans end  the     electoral       college as we know

I'm not sure I'm following the logic here. If congressional districts were measured in geographic size (i.e. x square miles per district) then the guy would have a point. But they're not. Congressional districts are all have approximately the same number of people in them (there is some difference from state to state, but that's irrelevant to the proposed change). How is being more concentrated supposed to make a district more partisan?

________________________________________
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] on behalf of Bonin, Adam C. [ABonin at cozen.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 8:34 AM
To: 'JBoppjr at aol.com'; 'rhasen at law.uci.edu'; 'law-election at uci.edu'
Subject: Re: [EL] Check out Could Pennsylvania Republicans end the      electoral       college as we know

Put simply, awarding electoral votes by congressional district would be a disaster for Democrats. Democratic voters tend to be much more concentrated in urban areas while Republican voters are typically more spread out. That means that the average blue seat is much bluer than the average red seat is red, which in turn means that there are more Republican-leaning districts than Democratic-inclined CDs.

_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
________________________________
Notice: To comply with certain U.S. Treasury regulations, we inform you that, unless expressly stated otherwise, any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this e-mail, including attachments, is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by any person for the purpose of avoiding any penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service.
________________________________
Notice: This communication, including attachments, may contain information that is confidential and protected by the attorney/client or other privileges. It constitutes non-public information intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If the reader or recipient of this communication is not the intended recipient, an employee or agent of the intended recipient who is responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, or you believe that you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this e-mail, including attachments without reading or saving them in any manner. The unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this e-mail, including attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is not a waiver of any attorney/client or other privilege.