Structure, History, and Culture (6k)—Electoral College Politics

One year ago on Round and Square (15 November 2011)—Lectures: Scholarship (e)
Click here for the introduction to the Round and Square series "Structure, History, and Culture"

[a] Structured RF

This is one post in a multi-part series on the American Electoral College. Click below for the others.

Electoral 1       Electoral 2        Electoral 3        Vote!                 Clearing        Electoral 4        Electoral 5          
Electoral 6       Electoral 7        Electoral 8        Electoral 9        Electoral 10   Electoral 11      Electoral 12
Electoral 13     Electoral 14

We ended our chat yesterday with an intriguing little idea. What if we broke the country's electoral votes into the 435 congressional districts, each with one vote, and then gave a bonus of two more for the candidate who won the whole state, as well? Let's do the same for the District of Columbia, bringing the number back to 538. This would change things. Recounts would be isolated, and could be focused almost laser-like on the places where the results were scalpel-thin—leaving the wider margins alone...and moving on. While it is not quite the same thing as the popular vote, it has many of the positives of that process and very few of the negatives surrounding the Electoral College.

So how would it work? 

[b] Minnesota RF

Well, let's use the great state of Minnesota—Land of 10,000 Lakes—as an example. Right now, in the system we currently use, Minnesota has ten electoral votes: two senate seats and eight congressional districts. The winner of each electoral district would win one vote, and the overall winner of the popular vote in the state would get two more. Yes, this might mean having to recount the whole state if it were as close as our examples from 1974, 1982, and 2008, but the stakes would be much lower than they are now. In fact, the stakes would be so comparatively low that the chances of the whole election hinging upon it would be almost ten times less than we had in...Florida 2000 (more on that soon).

You see, if Minnesota were painstakingly close, the statewide recount would result in only two more electoral votes for either party. Everything else would hinge on the vote count in each district. There are statistical possibilities for this being relevant, of course, but they pale in comparison to the situation we now have—recounting an entire state for ten, twenty, or thirty electoral votes (or more), with the entire presidency hanging in the balance. 

We call that "Florida 2000." The whole country waited that autumn while a few close precincts in the Sunshine State dropped their chad-like fruit. Some of us still get chills when we hear words such as "panhandle," "I-95 Corridor," and "Supreme Court."

Electoral votes reckoned by congressional districts would look very different. Based on this year's vote by congressional district in Minnesota, the result would have been:

                                                Obama (D)     Romney (R)
                                       MN 1       1                    
                                       MN 2                              1
                                       MN 3       1
                                       MN 4       1
                                       MN 5       1
                                       MN 6                              1
                                       MN 7                              1
                                       MN 8       1
                                       State       2   
                                     _______________________________
                                       Total        7                     3

[c] Close RF

It is up to you to decide how much of a difference this makes. Remember, that our current system gave all ten votes in Minnesota to Barack Obama (and, let us not forget, all ten in Missouri went for Mitt Romney). Winner took all. If we got rid of that and went to a congressional district system, what would it mean? Even if Obama won Minnesota 7-3 and Romney won Missouri 7-3, resulting in a tie of 10-10, just like we have now (the current rules have those states as 10-10)...what would it mean? Would it matter at all?

Yes, I think it would be transformational. 

No longer does one candidate (I care not which one) take all of the votes in a state. A challenger can make inroads in some districts, and the entire map of electoral planning changes in the process. This is good stuff, and is so tempting that I am ready to follow the lead of Nebraska and Maine to the promised land of (relative) electoral fairness. This has few of the downsides of recounting states, and none of the downsides of a hopelessly close popular vote nationwide. 

I like it so much that I am almost ready to sign on right now...

...but then I think about it a little bit more (it is a liability that goes back a long way, and is the source of this blog).

Alas, there are downsides here, too, and the concerns might be so serious as to endanger the entire idea, no matter how good it looks initially. While I am tempted not to overthink this, the whole problem with the Electoral College is precisely that no one thought about it enough, at least in the context of non-slave states and a very different union four score and nine years after the founding. The Electoral College was a product of convoluted compromise. Perhaps it fit its era. The problem is that, after the Civil War, when much else changed all over the country, no one bothered to get the congressional votes together to change this antebellum monstrosity. Few carry-overs from the bad-old-days of early America remain as problematic today as does the Electoral College. It is not quite as bad as Dred Scott or the Three-Fifths Compromise, but then, those are gone...and we still have states'-rights ideology coursing through our political system.

[d] Three RF

Many of us are not amused. At all.

It is more than a little ironic that the New York Times ran an editorial on this very topic today. Suffice (it) to say that Round and Square and the Times do not have a whole lot of overlap (in fact, the only overlap comes when I quote them). Still, this is oddly fitting as we head toward a conclusion to this long series on this blog. 

New York Times Electoral College

Although I rarely editorialize on Round and Square, my opinion should be obvious here. I agree that we should abandon the Electoral College. The problem with the Times editorial is that it doesn't really address any of the issues we have been considering on these pages for the last fortnight. The Times does not address the real problem—what is to be put in its place? We've been through almost all of the arguments, and the downside of the direct, national popular vote is every bit as problematic as it was when we left it a few days ago. So what about an electoral vote by congressional district. What about that? Minnesota and Missouri look pretty good. This has potential, right?

Let's consider just how problematic it might be. 

This may take a little while. Hang in there.

This is one post in a multi-part series on the American Electoral College. Click below for the others.

Electoral 1       Electoral 2        Electoral 3        Vote!                 Clearing        Electoral 4        Electoral 5          
Electoral 6       Electoral 7        Electoral 8        Electoral 9        Electoral 10   Electoral 11      Electoral 12
Electoral 13     Electoral 14

[e] Hanging RF