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

Thu Sep 15 12:38:51 PDT 2011

The district system only would give a different outcome when a Democrat won
a narrow victory in the popular vote -- as Adam points out, 2000 was the
only such election in recent decades.

Jimmy Carter squeaks by in 1976 (270-268 in electoral votes, although
results might have been different if the district system really had been in
place) despite his 2% win. The next prior election that might qualify is
John Kennedy in 1960, although I haven't seen those congressional district
numbers. (Our Fuzzy Math report shows that Kennedy would have earned only
270 electoral votes if the proportional allocation system had been used,
however, almost throwing the election into the House of Representatives.)

I know Jim Bopp was a bit tongue in cheek in suggesting that it would be
good if Democrats has to run more conservative candidates, but it does
underscore how gerrymandering electoral structures can affect behavior. I
would argue that voters living in swing districts aren't "better" and "more
deserving" than voters living in imbalanced districts. Voters living in
suburbs aren't better and more deserving than those living in cities.
Whenever we get away from principles of equality, we better be thinking hard
about whether we're doing the right thing.

Rob

On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 3:29 PM, Bonin, Adam C. <ABonin at cozen.com> wrote:

> 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
>
> =
>

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"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/d224beb7/attachment.html>