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

One year ago on Round and Square (16 November 2011)—Divinatory Economics: Introduction
Click here for the introduction to the Round and Square series "Structure, History, and Culture"

[a] Districts 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 left our discussion yesterday with a preliminary perspective on what a congressional district electoral vote would look like (in 2012, Minnesota would have been 7 for Obama and 3 for Romney, rather than 10-0 for Obama). For all its positive features—such as isolating key recount districts and focusing swing voters—there are deeply troubling problems. This is not as easy as I hoped it might be when I first latched onto it as the solution to the enormity of Electoral College problem in the United States of America.

Let's take a closer look at just how bad it could be.

[b] Abandoned RF

To  begin, it could be even worse than the Electoral College in one way that affects almost every voter in the nation. Let's just say that the problem with Minnesota is how the fourth district is going to vote. That's right. There is little doubt as to the vote in the others (let's say). The lines are drawn. That means that a candidate who visits Minnesota will not go to Brainerd, Itasca, Minneapolis, Northfield, or Albert Lea. The candidate will only go to White Bear Lake and a few adjoining cities (including St. Paul). What used to be (in the bad old days of the Electoral College) the blanketing of a whole state now has become the targeting of 750,000 voters in one corner of a state.

Oops. That's a problem. This is not what I had in mind. 

I did not really think that Minnesota, if it were close, would boil down to just St. Paul and its suburbs. I had assumed that at least the whole state (problematic though that might be when we realize that Utah and Delaware will get no attention at all)...in a quasi-swing-state...would get a little bit of attention.

This is a problem. 

In the old days (as in right now), swing states were given border-to-border attention. This would mean that we gloss over ninety-percent of the territory even in swing states. Isn't this worse than the original ridiculousness of the Electoral College? At least when we had the awful Electoral College, candidates had to spend time all over Ohio, Iowa, New Hampshire, and Florida. Heck, that means that candidates wouldn't spend time in Broward County (the Democrat is going to win it without trying) anymore. Isn't that a travesty?

In other words, the system could make the playing field even narrower.

[c] Constant RF

This is a really big problem. Let's not forget that. There is a very small upside, and it is up to you to figure out whether or not it outweighs the advantages of the Electoral College. You see, there will be congressional districts—little pockets—in deeply red or blue states. Each campaign will focus less on Ohio, Virginia, Nevada, Colorado, Wisconsin, and other "swing states," and will rather target particular districts (close ones) all over the country. Even Texas, Massachusetts, Illinois, and Georgia would get campaign attention in this way. It would open up the country, in one way, and close down the whole of the swing states, in another. 

Is it "better?" 

You'll have to decide; I have my doubts. I want a popular vote...except for the debilitating worry (Florida 2000 writ fifty states large).  And there is one more thing that pretty much kills the idea of congressional district electoral votes for me. It brings me back to throwing up (my hands, usually) in frustration at our ridiculous system. If you don't know the term, you should learn it, because American electoral politics depends on every letter in the word:  

Gerrymandering 

Look it up. 

[d] First Crocus District RF

In a practical nutshell, it means "altering district lines to fit the needs of one political party." It is a constant in American politics, and it affects virtually every congressional district in the country. For example, the Wisconsin district in which I live has been gerrymandered to suit Democrats. Big time. From Beloit in the south to Madison in the north, it covers two strongholds of liberal opinion, with a light rejoinder of conservatives along State Highway 213. Well, it works out to be a bipartisan "tie." The shape of the the Second Congressional District is liberal enough that the First Congressional District can stretch through almost exclusively Republican territory. Paul Ryan benefits from that, even as he loses his home town. It's also a "safe" district. 

1-1.

To make a long story short: Wisconsin's First Congressional District almost guarantees a Republican and the Second Congressional District almost guarantees a Democrat. If the state had been apportioned by a computer program, six of the eight districts would be competitive.

Right now, only two or three are. This is the result of gerrymandering. It matters.

[e] Implications RF

So where do you think the presidential candidates will campaign if this is the structure in place? This time around—with the constitutional power of the Electoral College in force—Joe Biden campaigned in Beloit and Barack Obama was in Madison with Bruce Springsteen. Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan spent hefty chunks of time in Green Bay and the Milwaukee suburbs. Scratch all of that if we go to this system, people. The candidates wouldn't go to any of those places. Why? 

Because they already would know they won in those places, even before the election started. 

In short, the districts are rigged—gerrymandered. Not even close.

And it gets worse. I won't prolong the agony by adding more examples, but let me just say this. The way that state legislatures bicker over congressional districts (and state courts adjudicate the most gross unfairness) gives me great pause when I consider what the stakes might be the presidency and not just one seat out of 438 seats in the House of Representatives. I shudder to think how these districts would look when a whole bunch of state senators and state representatives got done with the partisan carving.

We'll wrap this up by considering the implications of gerrymandering in the world of American politics. If you thought that the Electoral College (based on the definite borders of states) was flawed, well, just consider what a bunch of Democratic and Republican local-yokels could do to the process. They're the ones in charge if you want to change the borderlines of a district.

Nobody can (easily) change the borders of a state. That takes much more work. 

This matters. We'll pick it up from here tomorrow.

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

[f] Borders RF