Before the first of the year, I started up a blog using blogger. The topic was possible reform for the Electoral College (
http://electoralreform.blogspot.com). It became quite clear that I wasn't willing to put enough time into it for it to be able to stand on its own. Eventually, I lost interest and stopped working on it. I thought I might post a diary or two from that site here on Kos and see if it got more interest that way. If so, I'll make this into a series here.
The first post to the site with any real meat to it specifically looked at how alternative methods of electoral distribution woud affect Michigan in particular.
Background, Modern Electoral College
The 4.2 million voters in Michigan make up 4.0% of the 104 million across the country. For the elections of 1992 through 2000, Michigan was allocated 16 seats in the US House and the corresponding 18 Electoral Votes. It is worth noting that one of those EV's was taken away after the census of 2000. Michigan is one of those swing states that are considered key to winning the election. Because the popular vote in Michigan was so well balanced between Democrats and Republicans, this state could easily go to either candidate. Life in swing states has been described
here,
here,
here,
here, and
here. The combination of the winner-take-all allocation of Michigan's Electoral Votes and the balanced political climate in the state has elevated the importance of winning to state to far beyond its size in proportion to the rest of the nation.
Direct Election, Plurality Vote
If the election were to be a direct election, there is no doubt Michigan would not have received the attention that it did. Get out the vote efforts in Detroit supporting Gore and in the western and northern portions of the state supporting Bush would have been carried out, but those efforts would have been balanced with efforts in similar areas of non-swing states like California, Texas, and New York which were all mostly ignored. Michiganders who make the amount of attention that Michigan receives from candidates the top priority would never support a nationwide change to a direct election.
Electoral College with District Allocation of Electors
Raw vote totals tabulated on a district by district basis are summarized below. These statistics are compiled by POLIDATA. The data compiled specifically for Michigan can be found here.
District | Gore(D) | Bush(R) | Nader(I) | Dif | Comment |
1 | 43.1% | 53.4% | 3.5% | (R)10.3% | Solid Bush |
2 | 38.2% | 59.4% | 2.3% | (R)21.2% | Solid Bush |
3 | 38.2% | 59.2% | 2.5% | (R)21.0% | Solid Bush |
4 | 44.6% | 52.8% | 2.6% | (R)8.2% | Advantage Bush |
5 | 52.6% | 45.1% | 2.3% | (D)7.5% | Advantage Gore |
6 | 45.6% | 51.5% | 2.9% | (R)5.9% | Advantage Bush |
7 | 45.8% | 51.5% | 2.7% | (R)5.7% | Advantage Bush |
8 | 50.1% | 48.7% | 3.0% | (D)1.4% | Toss Up |
9 | 52.3% | 45.3% | 2.5% | (D)7.0% | Advantage Gore |
10 | 48.6% | 48.9% | 2.6% | (R)0.3% | Toss Up |
11 | 49.0% | 48.6% | 2.4% | (D)0.4% | Toss Up |
12 | 53.9% | 43.3% | 2.8% | (D)10.6% | Solid Gore |
13 | 58.3% | 38.6% | 3.2% | (D)19.7% | Solid Gore |
14 | 88.0% | 10.9% | 1.0% | (D)77.1% | Solid Gore |
15 | 86.7% | 12.0% | 1.3% | (D)74.7% | Solid Gore |
16 | 53.6% | 43.8% | 2.6% | (D)9.8% | Advantage Gore |
Total | 51.6% | 46.4% | 2.0% | (D)5.2% | Advantage Gore |
Three districts are solid Bush and four more are solid Gore with margins of at least 9%. Bush's districts make up the Upper Peninsula and the western portion of the Lower Peninsula while Gore's are the City Detroit itself as well as the immediate vicinity. Following the District Method, these areas of the state would be virtually ignored. Three districts are in the Bush column but could be brought into question by a directed effort from Gore. Similarly, four others show an advantage to Gore but are not out of reach from Bush. These districts make up the central and eastern portions of the Lower Peninsula. Three districts in the areas surrounding Detroit are far too close to call and deserve a great deal of time and effort. These "swing districts" would be just as important as "swing states" are in the current winner-take-all method. Interestingly, the entire state is a relatively close race showing a slight advantage to Gore. Any efforts to win those swing districts would pay off a little extra in gains made towards winning the 2 Electoral Vote bonus by getting the entire state. It is also worth mentioning that any efforts in swing districts could have additional affects in neighboring districts, helping secure the popular vote for the state.
A change in Michigan away from winner-take-all to allocation by district without a similar change across the nation would take away Michigan's swing state status and encourage candidates to divert attention to states like Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania. Using the district method, candidates could only gain four EV's in Michigan while other states could pay off with 20 to 25 EV's. A nation-wide change to district allocation would help to level that playing field, but candidate's resources would still be diverted to balanced districts in lopsided states.
Electoral College with Proportional Allocation of Electors
While there are a number of methods for allocating a "proportional" number of electors, there is one consistency with all of these systems. There are always a certain number of "magic numbers" that each candidate will have to cross to be awarded additional Electoral Votes. For purposes of this analysis, I will assume those values are as follows.
Candidate A | Candidate B | EV's for A | EV's for B |
36.5% | 63.5% | 7 | 11 |
42.0% | 58.0% | 8 | 10 |
47.5% | 52.5% | 9 | 9 |
52.5% | 47.5% | 10 | 8 |
58.0% | 42.0% | 11 | 7 |
63.5% | 36.5% | 12 | 6 |
Gore's support in Michigan at 51.6% would earn 9 Electoral votes giving Bush the remaining 9. A change in only one percentage point in Gore's favor would earn him an additional EV. In close elections, this would be worth some effort. A change in Michigan away from winner-take-all to proportional allocation without a similar change across the nation would take away Michigan's swing state status and encourage candidates to divert attention to states like Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania. Using proportional allocation, candidates could only gain one EV for every 5% in popular vote in Michigan while other states could pay off with 20 to 25 EV's. A nation-wide change proportional allocation would help to level that playing field.
Conclusions
- Michigan currently enjoys its status as a swing state because of its balanced political climate and winner-take-all allocation of electors. If either were to change, Michigan's status in Presidential elections would fall.
- Loss of prestige by changing the allocation method could be mitigated if it were changed nationwide.
- District allocation would give the Democrats an advantage in 8 districts, give the Republicans an advantage in 6 districts, and put significant pressure on three swing districts in Detroit's suburbia.
- Proportional allocation would drastically reduce attention given to Michigan by candidates because the return on the political investment would be so low.