[EL] electoral college piece

Fri Jan 25 15:53:05 PST 2013

I was glad to see Rick's contribution to this discussion. I did not find
some of his arguments as very compelling, though, and thought I'd explain
why. I also think that any short-term evaluation of what may happen in
states in the coming years should be judged as "incomplete" rather than
"final." My quick take:

1. The apparent lack of interest in pursuing district allocation by GOP
leaders in Florida and the growing indications of failure for the Virginia
plan this year suggest that the true swing states that might go down this
route -- that is, Florida, Ohio and Virginia -- will not take the lead in
taking action. They indeed may never act, although I'll be interested to
see what happens in 2015 as the character of the 2016 election becomes
clearer. Essentially, i you leave a loaded gun in a house, don't be
surprised if someone decides to use it.

2. As opposed to Fl, OH and VA, the swing states that Democrats
consistently win -- that is, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania (all won
by Democrats in every election since 1988) -- are another story.
Republicans don't need to win these swing states to win the presidency --
but getting 20 to 30 electoral votes out of these states would make their
road to 270 a lot easier in 2016. So keep an especially close eye on those
states

3. In dismissing the likelihood of change, Rick suggests that the district
plan would put Members of Congress and even state reps at risk due
apparently to more intensive campaign activity. That to me reflects a
fanciful take on how many percentage points campaign activity can affect --
and also a misreading of what the increased campaign activity has on down
ballot races. The fact is, a congressional district with a partisan voting
index of more than 53% for one party is going to be as tough to put in play
in a nationally tight election as it is for Republicans today to win
Michigan or Wisconsin statewide under current rules. There's also not much
indication of down-ballot impact in districts where there suddenly is a lot
more campaign activity at a higher level of election.

4. Quite specifically on campaign activity affecting partisanship, I don't
see how Obama field machine could have put lots of new districts in play
when there's not much evidence of it doing so in the states where the Obama
team WAS pushing hard -- like Iowa's CD3 and CD4, Ohio CD10 and CD14 and
many others. If Obama had had to win more congressional districts to win,
he probably could have increased his total of 207. But could he have have
gotten to 218 this year? HIGHLY unlikely.

5. There's also a general sense in Rick's piece that conditions change and
states come in out and of swing status, districts might come in and out of
being competitive and whole legislatures like Virginia are in a potential
state of flux. It's silly to ever say never, but.... the partisan brands
have an incredible impact on voters these days, and there wasn't a hint of
that changing in 2012 -- rather, it hardened all the more. That's why swing
states are so consistent, why congressional races so predictable and so on
-- winner-take-all rule and rigid partisanship are a bad combination. In
that environment, efforts to game the vote by targeting just a couple state
become more attractive -- and more definitively helpful to your cause.

We'll see. I still wouldn't rule out the wholescale change before 2016, but
it looks a lot less likely in the next couple years. And keep your eye on
MI, WI and PA..

- Rob

On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:

>  “Democrats, Don’t Freak Out! Why fears that Republicans will gerrymander
> the Electoral College are overblown” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=46598>
> Posted on January 25, 2013 1:36 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=46598>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Slate has published my new commentary<http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/01/republican_plans_for_electoral_college_reform_democrats_shouldn_t_worry.html>.
> It begins:
>
> Sound the alarm! Democrats are on high alert! Josh Marshall calls it a big,
> big deal<http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/01/this_is_a_big_big_deal.php?ref=fpblg>.
> Eric Kleefeld says<https://twitter.com/EricKleefeld/status/294596342507008002>if the blueprint were in place last November, the GOP would have “stolen
> 2012 for Mitt Romney.” Steve Benen of the Maddow Blog<http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/01/24/16677359-if-you-cant-win-elections-rig-them>calls it a “democracy-crushing scheme” showing that “the will of the voters
> and the consent of the governed are now antiquated concepts that
> Republicans no longer value.”
>
>   They’re all talking about potential plans to change the method for
> electing the president in states like Virginia, Wisconsin, and
> Pennsylvania—states that have Republican legislatures and governors but
> voted for Obama in 2012. Instead of awarding all of the state’s Electoral
> College votes to the presidential candidate getting the most votes in each
> of these states, under the proposed plans most of the Electoral College
> votes would be awarded to the winner in each congressional district—and
> thanks to Republican gerrymandering of those districts, such a scheme would
> be a windfall for Republicans.
>
>  This plan would be deeply concerning if Republicans were really going to
> enact it. But the same self-interest that is leading Republicans to
> consider this move is also going to lead most of them to abandon it almost
> everywhere. The Great Democratic Freak-out is unjustified. But it is not
> without its usefulness, because it reminds wavering Republicans what they
> will face if they go down the road of unilateral Electoral College reform.
>
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D46598&title=%E2%80%9CDemocrats%2C%20Don%E2%80%99t%20Freak%20Out%21%20Why%20fears%20that%20Republicans%20will%20gerrymander%20the%20Electoral%20College%20are%20overblown%E2%80%9D&description=>
>   Posted in electoral college <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=44> | Comments
> Off |
>
> --
> Rick Hasen
> Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
> UC Irvine School of Law
> 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
> Irvine, CA 92697-8000949.824.3072 - office949.824.0495 - faxrhasen at law.uci.eduhttp://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.htmlhttp://electionlawblog.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130125/bc99f80f/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130125/bc99f80f/attachment.png>