Centerfield

Candidates wouldn't ignore whole states, instead they'd ignore whole regions. Cities would rule, and rural residents could just forget about ever having a voice at all. The coasts and Great Lakes, with their high population concentrations, would be the exclusive targets. A dozen highly urbanized states covering under 25% of the nation could rule the rest.

I know, I know--much the same thing happens now anyway. But with the current system, candidates have to at least pay lip service to the more sparsely-populated states (anything not Texas or California!) west of the Missouri River, and to the rural areas of those states.

The point of the EC was not just to defend smaller states, but to help defend citizens in rural areas from being ruled by newcomer immigrant hordes in the cities. Yah, yah, politically incorrect, blah blah. But still applicable today. The Clinton/Gore admin didn't rush through all those Caribbean boat people citizenships in Florida in the 1990's because they loved Haitians. They wanted the votes.

I think that's far from an obvious result. For this to be true, it would have to mean that candidates would stop visiting some of the places they currently visit, and spend even more time in the places they currently do.

I think there's more reason to believe that candidates would visit states and districts that they otherwise would not visit.

I'm not sure what reason there is to believe that candidates would spend more time in urban population centers than they already do. It seems to me like this wouldn't be so unless these locations presented opportunities to pick up electoral votes that seemed up for grabs.

It also might drive the candidates more centrist, as Bush might find reason to go to Kall-ee-for-nee-ya and Kerry to Texas.

Tully, I think it's a little odd for you to dismiss it so quickly, given that you preach local power and local involvement.

There is simply no chance of this happening at the federal level. So it's up to each state legislature to decide for itself whether to adopt this.

If I remember right, nebraska has never has a split vote, and maine only split off a single electoral vote once? Maybe I reversed the states.

I've actually thought about the scenario before, Brian, and came to the conclusion that it would be good for really big cities but bad for low-population states and rural areas in particular, and would be divisive at the local/state level. Which in turn would be destructive of local government in smaller-population areas, and of state government. As most large cities (the obvious targets of candidates under such a system) are majority Democratic, the system would also give a bit of an edge to Democrats.

Kerry and Bush don't stump through small-town Ohio for the exercise. They have to pick up enough rural votes to tip them over the edge state-wide, even in EC districts where they can't win. Distributing EC votes would allow them to safely ignore areas they can't win, to concentrate only on areas they can.

It's not just regions. The system also helps minorities have some power. When an election isn't even close, distributed EC votes wouldn't make much difference. When it is close, it could make lots of difference. Not to mention that it would make ties more likely while also making it much tougher for states to cast their single House vote for a single candidate if an EC tie occured. If Minnesota EC votes split 5 and 5, who gets the single Minnesota vote in the House?

A Brief history and description of the EC shows what the major thoughts of the founders were in establishing the EC. There's also a list of pros and cons worth considering.

Yeah, right, I'm pretty sure the power to do this rests with the states. And of course, it hasn't happened much at all in homogenous states. But in states with, say 6, 8, or more votes, you might see more variance.

Tully I think your arguments make much more sense in the abstract than when compared to the current system in place. The current system allows candidates to safely ignore ENTIRE STATES they can't win, as opposed to districts.

Are you saying that the electoral votes are the same as the number of representatives in congress? I thought it was equal to the number of reps plus senators. It seems to me that the descriptions of what Nebraska and Maine do could only work if EV=senators + reps. If this is so, then a state split of electoral votes would be pretty unlikely, especially in a small state, because 2 EV would go to the state winner. So if you had an 8 EV state, then the only way you could get a tie would be if a candidate won the popular vote while losing in 4 of 6 districts.

Currently, candidates tour rural districts or rural portions of districts only in states where they have a shot of winning, right? If we changed to district apportionment, Bush would visit districts in California, New York, and Massachusetts, and Delaware that he might carry. Kerry would go to Texas, Missouri, Georgia and the Carolinas. Liberal districts in red states and conservative districts in blue states would be set free.

I don't see the rural areas getting hurt. Any candidate that wants to carry a district would need to visit rural parts to win if the district was a close call. And again, we'd have to do something about gerrymandering. Maybe I'm missing something in your argument, but I'm not at all convinced at this point.

Darn, my link didn't work and I'm short on time...

Origins of the Electoral College

That's better.

Brian, states can do all this now, in any fashion they desire. Ask yourself, why haven't they? (Hint: Think "coalition government")

OK, more time in hand, so some expansion on my two cents' worth. Nebraska and Maine apportion the votes of the Congressional districts to the winners of same, with their "Senate" EC votes going to the overall state winner. Only rarely does this change the tally from the straight-line approach used by every other state and DC. But they chose the method of the split. It would take a Constitutional Amendment for the federal government to force a consistent method on the states.

Right now, every state in the union can choose any means they wish of assigning their electoral votes. Draw lots. WWF smack-down Death Match. Beauty contest. Showdown Texas Hold'em. Anything. Why don't they? Why has the system stayed the same winner-take-all in every other state since the 12th Amendment?

Three major reasons. One is related to the original intended effect--dividing EC votes diminishes that state's voice with the federal government. If a state has 10 EC votes and and it looks like they'll split in a tight race (under the Neb/Maine method) into 6-4, then that state is "worth" only 2 net votes to a candidate. Whereas a state next door with 10 votes using the current WTA is worth 10 votes. Which state is in a better bargaining position with the White House? With the candidate?

The second is the problem of determining the split method. That's where local and regional intra-state rivalries come into play, and where rural/urban divisions sink the deal. If you live in small-town rural Ohio, what good is your vote when Cincinnati and Cleveland politicos have the numbers to assign the EC votes how they wish? The cities have the clout. Only by making the entire state the battleground do the rural areas have much swing, or minorities statewide.

The third reason is that the EC system actively supports a two-party system. Since it requires an absolute majority in the EC to win, three or more-way races would diminish the power of the reigning parties. This leads to the multi-party "coalition government" democracies of Europe, where the Nazis can ally with the Grens to take over. With the Dems and Gop's between them controlling every state house, and not wanting to have to cut third parties into the mix, the odds of the system changing are small indeed.

The Colorado referendum is not, as the Boston Globe article says, "voter-generated." It's a well-funded referendum effort begun and funded by both state and national Democratic groups. The intent is to give the Dems more leverage if we have a repeat of 2000. The referendum itself is constitutionally suspect, however. The US Constitution explicitly gives the power of determining how electors are selected to the state legislature, not to the populace. I sincerely doubt that a voter referendum directing the legislature on what they must do would pass Supremem Court muster without the legislature going along, and in Colorado, it won't.

I think if you look at the way votes are distributed, one of the things that is wrong with the EC is the over-representation of California. It's amazing to me that over 1/5 of the EC is California and no one campaigns here.

In an idealized world, it would be split into two smaller states each of which would still be an EC powerhouse (and still likely Dem controlled). It certainly would be better for Californians not only for elections but also to bring back control of wildly disfunctional state gov't that no longer even pretends to represent its population.

No Will, Cally has 55 electoral votes out of 539, just over 10%. But Cally has MORE than 10% of the country's population.

Tully I already fully understand the idea that such a change is within the rights of each state, and that it's not especially in the interests of a single state to change if other states stay with winner take all. I put that in the category of "difficulties that would need to be overcome" for the system to change. In other words, it's a reason why it probably won't happen, not a reason why the change I suggest, if it could occur, would be bad. I agree with your assessment on the likelihood of change.

But I still think that if a change to nationwide district apportionment COULD occur, then it's far from obvious that it would be a change for the worse, and very arguably could instead be a change for the better.

If you live in small-town rural Ohio, what good is your vote when Cincinnati and Cleveland politicos have the numbers to assign the EC votes how they wish? The cities have the clout. Only by making the entire state the battleground do the rural areas have much swing, or minorities statewide.

The math simply doesn't support this. Any state at any given time has a fixed proportion of rural and urban voters regardless of how the pie is divided. There is no way to increase the proportion of urban to rural in one district without decreasing the proportion of urban to rual in another. That's incontrovertible(which as we know, is rare!) What is also incontrovertible is that the more small proportions you make from the big statewide numbers, the more the outcome can be affected by small changes in things like turnout. To make 9900/20,000 greater than 1/2, you need an aditional 101 votes. To change 990/2000, only 11 votes. 99/200? Now only 2. Changing to district apportionment gives each voter a greater power to have an effect on a single electoral vote, and that may well be a positive.

I agree that the Coloradom initiative is politically motivated, not based on some high-minded principled effort. No surprise there.

But I don't agree that it's legally obvious that the people of a state don't have the right to tell its legislature what to do with a power granted to the state legislature by the federal government. The bottom line to me is that the state legislature's power has been granted by the people, if not in fact then in spirit. Referendums have arisen precisely because legislatures have failed to be responsive to the people from whom their power derives. So even if it turns out that a series of past and future court decisions establish that legally a legislature can decide not to be bound by a referendum, that doesn't necessarily make it right. I think legislatures should only do such things in rare and extreme circumstances, and this doesn't seem to be one of them.

You're right, BK. I don't know what I was thinking. I had 270 on my brain based on the EC votes needed to win.

I'm tossing those observations around my head, Brian. I'm not fixed on my first take. But I still don't see how you could get such a change in EC procedures without a constitutional amendment, because of the comparitive advantage states that didn't change would have. The state that stayed WTA would have the advantage, so they have no incentive to change.

We have intra-state regional rivalries here that remind me almost daily of how contentious and difficult changing the state's system would be, and how the various factions would work to defeat it or gain advantage for themselves. I freely admit that colors my thinking, whether I like it or not.

But I do believe that the Colorado referendum would be null and void in front of the Supremes on constitutional grounds. We almost met the issue head-on during Florida 2000, when the FL legislature threatened to send their own electors to the EC if the issues didn't get settled in time. There is absolutely no doubt that the legislature has the exclusive right to choose how electors are selected. One of the issues that would have come up had the Florida thing happened was even brushed on by the SC, when they stated the ex post facto principle that you couldn't change the rules after the election had been held. That would leave the issue of whether Colorado law permits the voters to make law that supersedes the federal constitutional rights of the legislature. I don't know enough about Colorado law to argue that. I do know it would be a real tough case to make.

The counter-argument I would expect from the legislature would be that the voters have the right to change the legislature at the ballot box if they so choose, but not to dictate to them how they can exercise their federal rights. The right is granted explicitly to the legislature, not to "the people." And my guess about the referendum process in CO is that like most ref statutes it allows the people to make state or local law. They can't possibly make or amend federal law, or the US Constitution, with a state referendum. Nor are the people "the legislature." And I don't think that SC would concede that "the people" have the right to encroach those explicit rights through any process other than the usual one of electing new legislators.

Well, like I said, I agree with you on the difficulty. it's not that I think it's likely to happen, it's only that I think it COULD be beneficial as a whole.

And as far as Colorado goes, my argument is really in essence a "spirit of the law is more important than the intent..." argument, which is of course arguable. I absolutely agree that you can't change the rules after the game. But leaving that aside, my general take on referendums is that the legislature should generally do its level best to enact the people's will, except in the most rare circumstances. So regardless of the actual mechanisms in place, my feeling is that if a referendum passes in which a majority of Coloradans votes to move to district apportionment, the legislature should accede.

The only types of rare exceptions I can imagine when I think a legislature should ignore referendums is when the idea enacted causes legal conflicts or makes a state unable to meet its obligations, like if say the people voted to legalize murder or abolish income taxes without providing a mechanism for the state to pay its bills.

interestingly, Massachusetts recently had an "abolish the income tax" referendum which shocked the crap out of the legislature by gettting close to 45% if I recall right. I think most of the people who voted for it simply wanted to take a shot across the legislature's bow. It was a way of saying "let's not fix the budget shortfalls by sticking it up the taxpayers' @sses." Thankfully, this message was received.

I'm all in favor of slapping them uppity legislators around now and then!