[EL] Check out Could Pennsylvania Republicans end the electoral college a...
Bonin, Adam C.
ABonin at cozen.com
Thu Sep 15 12:29:12 PDT 2011
Arguably 2000, had every Florida vote been recounted or Palm Beach County not employed the "butterfly" ballot.
(Ducks under table.)
--Adam
-----Original Message-----
From: Josiah Neeley [mailto:JNeeley at bopplaw.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 3:27 PM
To: Gaddie, Ronald K.; JBoppjr at aol.com; tlb056000 at utdallas.edu; rr at fairvote.org
Cc: Bonin, Adam C.; law-election at uci.edu
Subject: RE: [EL] Check out Could Pennsylvania Republicans end the electoral college a...
When was the last time when a by congressional district allotment would have given a different result from the current system? I take it from prior comments that the results would have been the same at least since 1976.
________________________________________
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] on behalf of Gaddie, Ronald K. [rkgaddie at ou.edu]
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 3:02 PM
To: JBoppjr at aol.com; tlb056000 at utdallas.edu; rr at fairvote.org
Cc: ABonin at cozen.com; law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Check out Could Pennsylvania Republicans end the electoral college a...
Jim, it was called 'split ticket voting.' Up to 100 congressional districts regularly split their popular vote outcome in that era.
But I wager you already knew that . . . :)
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 JBoppjr at aol.com [JBoppjr at aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 1:59 PM
To: tlb056000 at utdallas.edu; rr at fairvote.org
Cc: ABonin at cozen.com; law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Check out Could Pennsylvania Republicans end the electoral college a...
Taking a longer historical view, from 1950 to 1994 and from 2006 to 2010, the Democrats controlled Congress. During that time, however, several Republicans were elected President in the winner take all Electoral System. So it is hard to say that the Republicans have a natural advantage when elections are by Congressional district. If they did, why didn't they control Congress all those years. Jim Bopp
In a message dated 9/15/2011 10:59:36 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, tlb056000 at utdallas.edu writes:
I quickly read FairVote's report and I think the problem with the conclusions rests on the basis of their comparison - rather than comparing the congressional district system to a national popular vote, shouldn't you be comparing it to the status quo? The report does show, I think, that the congressional district system comes closer to the national popular vote that the winner-take-all method we have in most states now.
A quote from page 10:
"In 1972, Nixon won a landslide victory over George McGovern. His popular vote lead was 23.15 percent, which translated into an Electoral College lead of 93.5 percent. Under the congressional district system, his Electoral College lead would have been at 77.7 percent - smaller than with the unit rule allocation, but still considerably inflated compared to the popular vote difference."
Not surprisingly the congressional district system is far more proportional (fair?) than the winner-take-all method. This is the rationale for having districts in the first place - the results are much closer to proportional than winner take all. I understand that Rob's preference is for NPV, but assuming we don't get that would this be a move in the right direction?
If the Republicans do better in a congressional district system relative to the status quo, I don't think we conclude that the system is biased in favor of the GOP, but rather that it is removing some of the pro-Democratic bias in the winner-take-all system. This, it turns out, is correct. Below is a table showing that Democrats are advantaged in the Electoral College because they win far more EC votes by narrower margins that the Republicans do. Their votes are being used more efficiently and this is the source of the bias.
Would it be fair if only Blue states switched to this and Red states did not? No, but still the congressional district system is a move toward more proportional results.
Number of Electoral College Votes by Party and Winning Margin, 1996-2004
1996
2000
2004
2008
Margin
Dem
Rep
Dem
Rep
Dem
Rep
Dem
Rep
0-5%
100
133
96
125
106
103
106
53
10-15
208
3
119
71
124
79
105
83
15-20
19
23
45
55
19
80
143
27
15-20
49
0
4
8
0
16
3
10
20-30
0
0
0
12
0
8
4
0
30-40
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40-50
3
0
3
0
3
0
3
0
*Entries are the number of Electoral College votes won by each party in the last three presidential elections. The far left column indicates the margin of victory in these states. So the row label (0-5 %) indicates those states that the Democrat or Republican candidate carried by less than 5 percent of the two party vote.
Tom Brunell, Ph.D.
Professor of Political Science
Senior Associate Dean of Graduate Education
School of Economic, Political and Policy Science
UT Dallas
800 W. Campbell Road
Richardson, TX 75080
(972) 883-4963
On Sep 15, 2011, at 9:07 AM, Rob Richie wrote:
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<mailto: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<mailto: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 his90-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> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>] On Behalf Of JBoppjr at aol.com<mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 8:32 AM
To: rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>; law-election at uci.edu<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:rr at fairvote.org>
(301) 270-4616<tel:%28301%29%20270-4616>
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!
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
=
View list directory