The End of the Electoral College?! (w/Poll)

Kerry's substantial lead over Bush in the latest California Field Poll (53-41) got me thinking about the 2004 Electoral College. In 2000 Gore beat Bush by 1.3 million votes in California. Even with Schwarzenegger in the Governor's Mansion, I expect that the Democratic nominee will beat Bush in California by an even larger margin this year.

Given Bush's skill as a political strategist (or Rove's) would Bush mind losing votes in other populous states--say New York and Illinois--in exchange for the magic 270 Electoral Votes? Surely not. His "win" in 2000 was amazing from a strategic point of view (it was amazing he even came close to winning). His campaign worked the electoral system to a tee.

It seems reasonable then to say they'll do this again. So imagine the perfect storm: Bush wins the Electoral College but gets trounced by, say, three million votes in the popular vote and the Democrats retake the House and Senate.

This seems quite possible in light of Bush's support of the Federal Marriage Amendment. As several analysts have said, this shows that Bush is willing to eat his own to win: Bush's stance forces downticket Republican candidates to vote up or down and Republicans do much better when they can use code words in the culture wars (rather than having to state their positions directly). Since the infamous `92 Republican convention attitudes toward homosexuality have changed dramatically (for the better), and even then the move from code words to explicit intolerance hurt them badly.

So, if you take the premise (a) that Bush wouldn't do this if it hurt him electorally and (b) that this could shore up his support in enough red states to push him over 270 electoral votes, then don't the conclusions (c) that he might well lose by a much larger margin in the popular vote and (d) that this could swing things the Democrats way in Congress wither in `04 (or in the `06 midterms) follow?  

And this is where things gets interesting. If Bush loses the popular vote dramatically and the Democrats end up with control of Congress, couldn't there be a huge backlash? And couldn't that backlash hit the Electoral College head on? I'd like to see the Electoral College and its divisive effects on our politics gone, and I can't think of another scenario that would make this possible.

•  I doubt it

  Show me a map where Bush loses by three million votes and wins the EC.

  by Carl Nyberg on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 04:50:06 PM PDT

  •  Re: I doubt it

    Three million's pushing the envelope (I voted "unlikely but possible" in my own poll).

    Still, I'll try a slightly more realistic scenario of a 1.5-2 million popular vote win (with the caveat that I don't have the demographic data to do a real analysis). It's pretty much based on the speculative 2004 map you link.

    First, Bush largely cements his base in the states he won in 2000, so this doesn't add to his net advantage, even cuts into it by say 150,000 votes, but safely preserves his 2000 wins (something any candidate would take I suspect).

    Second, the Democratic nominee wins a couple of Bush states (like NH and AZ) and increases margins in close states like NM and IA, padding the popular win by 150,000 votes, but still putting him at 268 electoral votes.

    Finally, the Democratic nominee gets say 3% more of the vote than Gore in California (300,000 votes), Illinois (150,000 votes), New York (200,000 votes), and a few other strong blue states (200,000 votes).

    Like I said, a perfect storm, but 1.5-2 million more popular votes seems plausible. (This plainly won't work if Florida goes to the Dems, but it's safe to say if Florida goes red the Democrat wins.)

    Obviously it's just speculation (mostly a game, one I enjoy more than I should), but it's worth considering this scenario if only because it's a conceivable way to end the electoral college.

    One other point: I read a great piece a while ago suggesting that these close elections would become the norms as candidates used more sophisticated methods of campaigning. Basically this analyst (I've lost the citation) said that candidates would split the issues so evenly and skillfully that results like those in Florida, Iowa, New Hampshire, and New Mexico in 2000 would become the norm.

    This makes sense to me, and if it's true then the Electoral College virtually assures us that the popular vote winner will lose much of the time.
    

    by Natural Anthem on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 05:40:39 PM PDT

•  I sure hope so!

  Not the part about Bush winning, but I'd love to see the Electoral College abolished!

  The worst part about it is how it focuses everyone's efforts on a handful of "swing states."  If you live in a state that's heavily Democratic or heavily Republican, you and your concerns get totally ignored.

  by Go Vegetarian on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 04:50:24 PM PDT

  •  Ignored?

    If you live in a state that's heavily Democratic or heavily Republican, you and your concerns get totally ignored.

    Lucky You

    by Manny on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 05:10:12 PM PDT

•  NEVER HAPPEN

  
  A graduate school professor of mine predicted in 1999 that someday, the popular vote loser would win the electoral college and college would be eliminated as a result.  I agreed (and even later predicted in July 2000 that Bush would win electoral but lose popular vote--I swear-you cana sk my conservative friend Doug Overmyer who I was arguing with at the time) that the electoral loser would win the popular vote sometime soon.   However, I disagreed strongly with his assumption that the electoral college would be eliminated.  An amendment needs ratification of 38 states.  As it stands now, all the small states are overrepresented in the electoral college because they get 2 votes for their two Senators.  38 states would never vote to ratify.  If the college was eliminated, no one would ever campaign in West Virginia.  Also, getting 2/3 of the Senate would be difficult.  In addition, the college favors Republicans at the moment because of all the overrepresented northern plains states (that great, big, ugly, red blob in the middle of the country).  Right now, even Republicans in CA or NY would not vote for the amendment. Furthermore, the two parties themselves have a tremendous interest in preserving the college and keeping third party candidates from having a real shot at the White House.

  by allenjj on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 05:07:22 PM PDT

  •  Yes, but...

    If the college was eliminated, no one would ever campaign in West Virginia.

    But they would campaign in New York, California, Texas...etc.  That would more than make up for it, I'd say.  And WV would still have their two senators.

    Furthermore, the two parties themselves have a tremendous interest in preserving the college and keeping third party candidates from having a real shot at the White House.

    How would third party candidates have any better shot without the EC?

    the college favors Republicans at the moment

    Certainly seems that way, given all those Mountain West states, as you said.  But there must be an alternate theory, as Republicans were grumbling in 2000 that they saw Gore winning an EV victory without getting the popular vote as a real possibility (they hinted darkly that they would challenge such an outcome).  I think it had something to do with racking up massive extra vote totals in TX and other red states or something...

    by SlackerInc on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 05:31:20 PM PDT

    •  Third Parties

      
      Third parties would have a better shot at the White House without the Electoral College if the election was run like parliamentary governments.  In most countries, if one person does not win a majority of the vote, there is a run-off between the to two candidates.  This usually allows people to vote their conscience in the first vote and vote strategically in the second.  This gives third parties a greater chance of placing in the top two (although the odds are still great).  Political science teaches that two-party systems usually create moderate candidates and philosophies.  

      Further, under the Electoral College, if no one gets a majority, the House decides the election.  Except for 1 member, the House is Dem and Rep.  If a third party candidate could win some states or even get 48% of electoral vote compared to 26% for Dem and 26% for Rep, the third party still would not win.

      by allenjj on Fri Feb 27, 2004 at 02:02:48 PM PDT

•  We can fix the EC

  Without getting rid of it - since getting rid of it requires an amendment that will be blocked by those little states that benefit.

  Raise the size of the House to about 650. This will reduce the size of the "State Electoral Vote" and make it far more difficult to win the election without also having a plurality in the popular vote.

  by Stirling Newberry on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 05:08:42 PM PDT

  •  The advantage of expanding the House

    Would be that it would require a simple majority to pass an apportionment bill, instead of 2/3rds to amend the constitution.

    There'd also be other advantages to having a larger House, not the least of which would be it would be harder to gerrymander non-existant majorities.

    And the People's House would be closer to the People, or whatever.

    ~Jimbo

    "...Two nations; between whom there is no intercourse and no sympathy...[I speak of] the rich and the poor." - Disraeli

    by JimTXDem on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 07:11:55 PM PDT

    •  Re: Expanding the House

      This is good! It involves a much smaller sacrifice from the party that benefits from the current system (the Republicans) and doesn't take a supermajority like you said. In other words, it's much more practical/plausible.

      I think, too, that another popular vote loser/electoral winner (even if a Democrat) could help instigate this kind of reform.

      And the idea of a large House (why stop at 650?) could be great for democracy in its effects on gerrymandering and its inclusiveness (we could know our congressmen, we might not need as much money to run a campaign, and it might be harder to get members to vote on party lines, leading to more independence on the part individual members).

      I suspect that the most signficant resistance would come from current members of Congress who wouldn't want their power diluted.

      by Natural Anthem on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 07:35:01 PM PDT

•  Small states will never go along.

  All opinions about the value of the electoral college asside, there is literally zero chance that it will be abolished especially under the scenerio described here.

  Why is that?  Small states rights.  Just as the senate protects the rights of small states and no small state would ever vote to go simply to a representative body based solely on population so too would be the thinking among small states on the electoral college.

  In order to get rid of the electoral college you would need to amend the constitution.  You would need 2/3 of both houses and on that front you could possibly pass the house with it since represenatitives from big states might see it as useful.  The Senate on the other hand would be tough as small state senators would not be likely to vote for it.  But even if you could pass both houses as unlikely as it is you then move to needing 3/4 of state bodies to ratify.  I can name off 20 smaller states that would never support it let alone the 13 that would be needed to kill the amendment.  Small states such as ND,SD,MT,ID,WY,RI,VT,etc,etc,etc would never see a Presidential candidate on their soil without the electoral college.  Also the electoral college gives the smaller states slightly advantageous disproportional representation over the presidential outcome as far as the weight of their vote.  Anyone think the small states are going to vote to remove that advantage?

  It all comes down to the votes and small states self interest.  There are way to many small states for 3/4 of them to ever vote against their own interests and ever remove the electoral college.  

  Something radical beyond what we can now comprehend would be required to get rid of the electoral college.  But nothing so oridinary as another over-riding of the popular vote even if by larger margins will come even close to changing this system.

  by lynx on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 05:12:07 PM PDT

  •  Re: Small states will never go along

    Lynx: I proposed this in part because I think two consecutive electoral win/popular vote losses would seem pretty radical, but maybe more is needed (three consecutive perish the thought). It's hard to tell.

    One scenario: The scenario unfolds in this way (big popular vote loss, slim EC win), and then in '06 Democrats gain lots of seats in the House and Senate. I can't imagine a 2/3 Democratic majority (as nice as that would be), but nothing scares politicians more than the prospect of losing. Lots of people don't care as much about democracy as winning, but with such clear indication that this process awards the loser the Democrats get real popular support.

    Maybe an analogy would be the 22nd Amendment (two terms for the President). It passed in 1947 when Truman was President, but I'm not sure how the balance between Republicans and Democrats affected its passage.
    

    by Natural Anthem on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 06:37:47 PM PDT

•  Mend It, Don't End It

  I think the electoral college is a good thing.  Without the electoral college, we would have multiple candidates running for President from various parties with the winner getting something like 20% from a narrow segment of society.  Maybe if we had a runoff of top two vote-getters and elected President in similar way as France it could work, but I don't see that happening.

  I say keep the electoral college because it assures that candidates must appeal to a broad segment of society in order to get the 270 threshhold.  However, I would change the way electors are selected.  I think each Congressional district should choose their electors independently with two additional electors going to the winner of each state.  Therefore, Southern states like Georgia, with a still reasonable strong Democratic party, could  split their electoral votes instead of having them all go Republican.  The opposite effect would happen in large states like California and New York with large Republican rural areas that get overwhelmed by the Democratic urban areas. 3rd party candidates that show strength in limited areas could concentrate on winning a few friendly Congressional districts in order to have a stronger influence on general election campaign.

  There is precedent for choosing electors as described.  Maine uses this system and each state has the right to decide how its electors are chosen.  Maybe some of the number cruncher junkies out there can tell us how the 2000 campaign would've turned out if each Congressional district voted for electors independently.

  by Grand Poobah on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 05:13:34 PM PDT

  •  Gerrymandering?

    If each district were all-or-nothing for a single elector, wouldn't that increase incentive for gerrymandering?  At least our state lines aren't in any danger ...  

    Shit, I shouldn't have said that, given the integrity of our Republican "leaders", maybe those are at risk, too.

    by Blue the Wild Dog on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 06:20:03 PM PDT

    •  Re: Gerrymandering

      Voters seem willing to split their votes between parties on President/Congressional choices so it probably wouldn't have so profound an effect on national level as in local races.  

      But your point is well taken and it may be time to consider taking redistricting out of hands of legislatures and setting up judicial panels or some other independent arbiters to decide district boundaries.

      by Grand Poobah on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 07:39:30 PM PDT

      •  I've been idly ...

        thinking about devising an impartial algorithm to divide a state into equal-population districts.   It seems like an interesting mathematical problem.

        by Blue the Wild Dog on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 07:49:29 PM PDT

        •  Re: I've been thinking

          Good idea. I don't have the math skills for such a task(anymore), but it seems to me that it doesn't take a lot regardless of party to see that gerrymandering is pernicious any way you cut it.

          by Natural Anthem on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 07:59:00 PM PDT

•  I'd love to see a map and numbers...

  Who would benefit by the COng district electoral college?

  by jgkojak on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 05:20:00 PM PDT

•  Rove's skill?

  Didn't Bush have a sizable lead down the stretch in 2000?  Didn't Rove blow it by wasting time in California?  Didn't Rove predict an electoral college blowout?  Or is my memory failing?  I'm not sure you can say Bush's win was "amazing from a strategic point of view".  It was amazing from a "how bad can our country's luck be point-of-view".

  by Blue the Wild Dog on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 05:25:42 PM PDT

  •  Re: Rove's skill

    Blue: I say both (though the "how bad can our country's luck" be is sadly less arguable).

    It's like blackjack: Any time you have a system, people will look for openings. I just read a fascinating book, Ben Mezrich's Bringing Down the House: The Inside Story of Six M.I.T. Students Who Took Vegas for Millions, and it illustrates this principle perfectly: These guys found an opening and worked it for millions of dollars. Basically I'm talking about leverage (or, in a less physical context, arbitrage), and that's what the EC offers.

    I explain how I think this works in terms of elections in the final two paragraphs of my response to Carly Nyberg at the top of this thread.
    

    by Natural Anthem on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 05:59:57 PM PDT

    •  But, on occasion

      even a blind pig can find an acorn.

      That is, in retrospect, a winning strategy may appear to have been a brilliant strategy, even though at the time it was implemented little or mistsken thought went into it.

      by Blue the Wild Dog on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 06:12:28 PM PDT

      •  Re: But, on occasion

        Wouldn't a strategist have to be a genius to get as weak a candidate into the WH? They must've been thinking, "Hey let's find the least-promising guy and get him into the WH to prove we're that good."

        More seriously, I think Democrats hurt themselves when they psych themselves out about Rove's brilliance, and they hurt themselves when they dismiss Bush as an incompetent.

        by Natural Anthem on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 06:46:34 PM PDT