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

Thu Sep 15 14:40:33 PDT 2011

I am sorry that it has taken me the whole day to get to this.  It sounds
like most of what can be said has already been said, but Rob asked to
hear from those of us who do not support NPV, so I will throw in my two
cents.

I suspect that Rob and John Koza expect me to enthusiastically endorse
what is going on in Pennsylvania.  I am sorry to disappoint.  My stance
is much more neutral.

At the end of the day, I see this as an issue that should be left
entirely to Pennsylvanians. I don't live there, so I wouldn't presume to
tell them how to balance the pros and cons of moving to a congressional
district system.  In my view, the legislature should consider these
factors:

(1) First and most importantly, the plan being considered in
Pennsylvania is in line with the Constitution. Pennsylvanians will be
making decisions only for themselves and not for the rest of the
country. NPV will face constitutional challenges, for reasons which we
have discussed on this listserv in the past.  I should note that the CD
plan can be constitutional, but still be a very bad idea for
Pennsylvania.

(2) The CD system has advantages that Pennsylvania legislators may
legitimately seek. It would allow diversity within Pennsylvania to be
reflected in electoral vote totals. Candidates would be discouraged from
focusing only on densely populated areas within the state. These
advantages are in line with the coalition-building incentives generally
created by the Electoral College.

(3) For reasons that I have stated elsewhere, I don't mind if the winner
of the electoral votes and the winner of the popular votes differ,
either within a state or nationally.  Rob and John will be unsurprised
to hear this.

(4) A definite downside to the CD system is the potential it carries to
magnify the effects of gerrymandering.  In my own home state of Texas,
redistricting is a pretty ugly process.  I would hate to think how much
worse it could get if the presidential race were also impacted.

(5) I agree with Rob and John that I don't want it to come down to a
handful of swing districts, but I have very different reasons.  I worry
that it could undermine federalism/the 10th Amendment by giving
presidential candidates too much reason to worry about matters of purely
local concern.  We already have some of this going on today. I don't see
any reason to make it worse. This factor would carry more weight if the
CD system is implemented nationwide than if only a state or two does it.

(6) I agree that it would be harmful if a state switched back and forth
from the CD plan to winner-take-all, based purely on political
considerations. As someone astutely pointed out, this problem also
exists with NPV.

(7) Pennsylvania, in particular, should consider whether it is helping
itself with this plan.  It is currently a swing state, but this plan
would reduce the number of contested electors.  The state would likely
receive less attention overall. It is for Pennsylvania to decide how to
weigh that as a factor.

Finally, Rob, you state: "I have a challenge to Tara Ross and other
defenders of the status quo: try to win an Electoral College-type system
for electing the governor of a state."

Actually, I would love to have an Electoral College system for electing
the governor of Texas, particularly since my home state is so big and
diverse. (I can see where smaller, more homogenous states would not need
such a system.) If such a plan were proposed, I am sure I would end up
in Austin testifying in favor of it. Governors here are too often
representatives only for Dallas, Houston or San Antonio when they should
represent a broader cross-section of Texans. I unfortunately lack the
time and energy to personally take this cause on.

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Rob
Richie
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 9:08 AM
To: JBoppjr at aol.com
Cc: ABonin at cozen.com; law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Check out Could Pennsylvania Republicans end the
electoral college a...

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-elec
toral-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-Republica
ns-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] 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-rep
ublicans-end-the-electoral-college-as-we-know-it/2011/09/14/gIQAQUzUSK_b
log.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 <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!

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20110915/dd4d1065/attachment.html>