[EL] Check out Could Pennsylvania Republicans end the electoral college a...

Thu Sep 15 07:07:34 PDT 2011

Jim, et al,

Let me preface my comment with a query. You were a leader in the push at the
RNC to oppose the National Popular Vote plan for president. Do you see this
proposal as an alternative the party should embrace even though it increases
the odds of the national popular vote winner losing the election?

I'll comment on both the national implications of this misguided proposal
and the state implications.

On the national implications: As Adam points out, if the congressional
district proposal were done nationally, it would have a decided Republican
tilt. Any presidential election in which a Democratic presidential candidate
won the national popular vote by less than about 3% would typically be won
by the Republican nominee. So rather than the "fair fight"that the national
popular vote represents (both parties have demonstrated an equal ability to
win the national popular vote over the years and ability to win by landslide
in good years for their party), it would be an election system in which a
Democrat could only win if winning by more than 3%.

FairVote did a useful report on the congressional dsitrict proposal back in
2007, calling it appropriately "Fuzzy Math." See:
http://www.fairvote.org/fuzzy-math-wrong-way-reforms-for-allocating-electoral-college-votes

Among findings:

* In 2004, only 55 congressional districts were decided by less than 4% in
the presidential race. It's hard for campaign activity to affect much more
than a couple percentage points, especially if the other side responds. If
done nationally, very few districts would be competitive, and very few
states would continue to be competitive. Most voters would remain as
spectators.

* The 2000 election distortion cited by Adam is instructive of the
Republican advantage in congressional districts today (an advantage I
suspect will grow after this year's redistricting). But even in 1976, when
Democrats like Jimmy Carter did better among white rural voters in the
South, Carter's win by more than 2% in the national popular vote would have
turned into a nail-biting 270-268 electoral vote win under the congressional
district system.

As to the query about how greater concentration of Democratic votes matters,
here are two revealing stats coming out of North Carolina.

* Using a state partisan voting index developed by Civitas that is similar
to the Cook Partisan Voting Index, the median district in the new North
Carolina house plan has a +6 Republican partisanship, up from +2 Republican
in the Democratic plan that was used in 2010. Note that in that 2010
election, not a single Democrat won in any state legislative district with a
Republican lean. And despite Republicans having a very good year, they did
not win a single district with a lean of more than +4 Democratic.

* Obama won North Carolina in 2008. But in the new congressional district
plan, 10 of 13 districts have a partisanship of at least +9 Republican -
-meaning that a Republican candidate will likely carry 10 of the state's 13
House districts even if losing the statewide popular vote by 17%.

Relating to Pennsylvania specifically: The only rational way to interpret
the Pennsylvania proposal is as a partisan powergrab designed to give a
Republican nominee a majority of the state's electoral votes even when
losing the statewide popular vote. Republicans are expected to try to
cushion most, if not all, of their 12 House incumbents. So let's say the
Republicans decide to sacrifice one incumbent and protect 11 seats. Just as
the North Carolina GOP did, they will do so by packing Democrats into safe
districts -- let's conservatively say 7, although they may go for just 6. If
it's 7 seats, then the Republicans will win 11 of the state's 20 electoral
votes even if losing the statewide popular vote by several percentage
points.

Furthermore, it would be highly unlikely that more than two or three of the
state's districts would be competitive. So a state that drew such massive
attention in 2004 and 2008 would likely be effectively written off: why
would a campaign fight hard for 2 statewide electoral votes or 1 or 2
congressional district electoral votes if all of the electoral votes in
states like Ohio and Florida are in play due to winner-take-all?

So if I'm a Republican leader in Pennsylvania, I'm saying to the prospective
Republican nominee: "forget about our state's voters -- just accept 11
electoral votes and go spend your money and your attention to voters
elsewhere:"

Is this truly what they want? Can they justify it to their state's voters?

We'll see. But I would like to hear the opinions of the ardent opponents of
the eminently fair national popular vote plan for president about whether
this is their vision of a fair presidential election system.

- Rob Richie, FairVote

On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 8:58 AM, <JBoppjr at aol.com> wrote:

> **
>     Very interesting.  If course, if this change was made, it would also
> change how campaigns are run.  In 2008, Obama made a successful play for one
> of Nebraska's electoral votes. I assume that changes in campaign strategy
> would mitigate this result in the future.  Jim Bopp
>
>  In a message dated 9/15/2011 8:34:55 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> ABonin at cozen.com writes:
>
>  Yes.
> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/09/14/1016892/-Pennsylvania-Republicans-propose-awarding-states-electoral-votes-by-congressional-district
>
>
>
> 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.
>
> Here's one stark illustration. John McCain's best district in the nation
> was TX-13, which occupies the Texas panhandle. He won there by 77-23, a 54
> percent margin. By contrast, there were *39* districts that Barack Obama
> won by an equal or bigger spread, all the way up to his*90*-point victory
> in New York's 16th Congressional District in the South Bronx.
>
> More concretely, if Pennsylvania's proposed system were in place
> nationwide, Obama's 365-173 electoral college romp would have been a much
> tighter 301-237 win. Meanwhile, George W. Bush's narrow 286-251 victory over
> John Kerry would have turned into a 317-221 blowout. And just as bad, Bush's
> razor-thin 271-266 margin over Al Gore would have been a more comfortable
> 288-250 spread for Dubya, making Gore's "loss" despite winning the national
> popular vote even more galling.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf Of *
> JBoppjr at aol.com
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 15, 2011 8:32 AM
> *To:* rhasen at law.uci.edu; law-election at uci.edu
> *Subject:* [EL] Check out Could Pennsylvania Republicans end the electoral
> college as we know
>
>
>
> Click here: Could Pennsylvania Republicans end the electoral college as we
> know it? - The Washington Post<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/could-pennsylvania-republicans-end-the-electoral-college-as-we-know-it/2011/09/14/gIQAQUzUSK_blog.html>
>
>
>
> Has anyone done any work on the effect of awarding electoral college votes
> by congressional district would have effected prior Presidential election
> results?  Jim Bopp
> ------------------------------
> *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.*
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Respect for Every Vote and Every Voice"

Rob Richie
Executive Director

FairVote
6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 610
Takoma Park, MD 20912
www.fairvote.org  <http://www.fairvote.org> rr at fairvote.org
(301) 270-4616

Please support FairVote through action and tax-deductible donations -- see
http://fairvote.org/donate. For federal employees, please consider  a gift
to us through the Combined Federal Campaign (FairVote's  CFC number is
10132.) Thank you!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20110915/08b056bf/attachment.html>