My Plum Line post today is about the possibility that Republicans may switch Pennsylvania's electoral vote system to a Maine-like districted plan, thus taking away about half the votes that a Democrat would get from the Keystone state in a national election in which the Dem had a small overall vote plurality (since PA is very marginally a Democratic state). My main point over there was that this is consistent with both Constitutional hardball (that is, violating norms that were never codified) and with the recent trend in which Democrats take advantage of landslides to enact substantive policy while Republicans use landslides to attempt to consolidate power.
I'll add a couple of things for now over here. One is that Matt Yglesias makes the point that states are in fact free to do whatever they want with their electoral votes; the Constitution doesn't say anything about elections at all, let alone how to apportion the votes. While that's true and a useful point to make, the counterargument would be that there probably are things that are so far from the norm that it's perhaps a mistake to extrapolate how people would react from what we know of political behavior in other situations, and a party canceling a presidential election in a state and conferring the EVs on their candidate would be one of those things.
The other thing to add is to send you all to an excellent post by Matt Glassman, who adds some historical perspective and explains why attempts such as these are rare and should remain rare even if state party leaders now would care more about national party success than maximizing state clout. I agree with him in general, but I'm not convinced as he is that Pennsylvania Republicans are unlikely to act. I think Glassman puts a bit too much emphasis on the possibility that Republicans could cost themselves EVs if they act (since Republicans could certainly win PA in 2012). After all, the partisan disincentive is only for the chance of PA going Republican when the rest of the nation goes very narrowly Democratic, so that the lost (Republican) EVs throw the election to the Democrats. That scenario is possible, but at least in my view far less likely than the chance that the opposite would happen, and neutralizing PA would shift the election to the Republican nominee. On the other hand, it is possible that Republicans could be risk-averse, and it's also possible that the threat of national disapproval might push them away from acting.
Jonathan, does the likelihood that this kind of thing is going to be part of the playbook in the future improve your opinion of the National Popular Vote endeavor?
ReplyDelete"On the other hand, it is possible that Republicans could be risk-averse, and it's also possible that the threat of national disapproval might push them away from acting."
ReplyDeleteRepublicans were willing to send the nation into default if their fiscal priorities were not accommodated. They're going to push this through, and any chance Obama had of winning in 2012 vanish.
Yes
ReplyDeleteHas there ever been a constitutional challenge to the methods states use to apportion electoral votes, Jonathan? For it does seem that the winner-take-all sort of does away with any notion of equal representation in the process.
ReplyDeleteYou want some cheese with that whine, Mr. Bernstein? ;-)
ReplyDeleteNo sense complaining about electoral shenanigans by your much hated evil Faux News enemies. It's not like the Massachusetts legislature, and their musical chairs antics with senatorial succession, every 15 minutes swapping out law for partisan political advantage, is anything different than this PA business. This is just business as usual.
And as Obama, The Won, reminded us all (it seems so long ago, doesn't it?)... elections do have consequences. If a state wants to leave their EV's up to a local dogcatcher's discretion, it would appear they have the right to do so. Maine and Nebraska have done as much recently (sans the dogcatcher bit, the partypoopers ;-).
But it's sort of a "meh" thing, and really doesn't mean much long term, imo, and only the partisans would get excited over it. It won't spread like wildfire, and I'm not certain it'll change electoral outcomes much, even following the 20-30 years it'd take to move a block of states towards it, if it did spread.
And in the short term, as Obama's in the hurt locker with Independents in PA, this move might wind up helping him more than hurting him in 2012, as 1/2 of PA EV's is better than none.
Now I'd grant you that if Michigan and Wisconsin joined PA, and both jumped on this, it'd likely damage Obama's chances. But I don't see it happening so precipitously, in either case. Both those states have other fish to fry.
And I think you lefties should give up on the Palm Beach County jihad. There ain't gonna be no national card check in our future, not unless somebody taps into the Constitution, and I see no momentum for that.
Get that class traitor FDR, and that redistributionist "E Pluribus Unum" crap off the dime, and put Al Davis, and "Just Win, Baby" on there instead.
ReplyDeleteNow that's a real American for you.
Anon 5:32, partisan though he is, is right about Massachusetts changing the laws governing succession for a Senate seat. They went in the correct direction by requiring an election, and didn't completely or even mostly undo it. But it still looked and smelled political.
ReplyDeleteA few months later, we elected a Republican to the seat. The shenanigans over the seat probably didn't sway many votes, but this thing in Pennsylvania is bigger and will have more in-state voters watching.
Giuliani supporters made a similar push in California before 2008, but that really went nowhere. Of course, it's solidly blue California.
ReplyDeleteJon, you're right about the constitutional hardball. The question is: are you right about the party differential on this?* I feel obligated to note Bernstein's Iron Law of Politics: partisans always think the other side is better at the game than than their side is. And, as political scientists, there's a natural inclination to focus on skillfull manipulation of the rules, given our "rules affect outcomes" approach.
*Note: I'm in perfect agreement with you on the two points, but it's a point that bears being made.
You definitely should not think for a minute that this idea was hatched independently in the minds of a few GOP state legislators in Harrisburg. This is probably a national party idea. Apparently, some of the local GOP people in PA are pissed because they think that they will have to deal with more national dem money in their districts.
ReplyDeleteIf they do pass this, then they create the possibility that Obama wins PA by hundreds of thousdands of votes, but the great majority of the state's electoral votes go republican. Can you imagine if the entire election comes down to recounts in some of PA's absurdly gerrymandered distrcts? The Republicans are playing with fire, again.
Pennsylvania is a case study in how the Republicans have captured power through manipulation of the weaknesses in our system. The state is overwhelmingly democratic, but the Republicans controlled redistricting entirely in 2000 and now again in 2010. In particular, the Phila suburbs should be sending many more democrats to the state legislature, but are not due to gerrymandering.
It's hard to break a system that's been broken for some time.
Zic,
ReplyDeleteIt's clearly Constitutional for states to do this sort of thing.
ModeratePoli,
I really disagree. The MA Senate thing seemed very much politics as usual to me. This, I'd say, isn't.
Matt,
I'm certainly very aware of the Iron Law. However, I'm not saying that one side is more ruthless than the other, just that they do different things to take advantage of their opportunities. I think there's considerable empirical support, both in the external actions and, to a lesser extent, in how they talk about things -- Newt was very big on the whole "consolidating power" thing. Remember, too, that I mostly believe that the Democrats are making the correct strategic choice, not the Republicans.
This will change the calculus of campaign resource management and that may well have a partial reversion effect in terms of overall effect on presidential election outcomes.
ReplyDeleteThe PA proposal is not far from the norm. Maine and Nebraska use the congressional district method to award their electoral votes.
ReplyDeleteAlthough it's worth noting Republican legislators seem quite "confused" about the merits of the congressional district method. In Nebraska, Republican legislators are now saying they must change from the congressional district method to go back to state winner-take-all, while in Pennsylvania, Republican legislators are just as strongly arguing that they must change from the winner-take-all method to the congressional district method.
ModeratePoli,
ReplyDeleteThe Massachusetts legislature didn't just jack around with senatorial succession during the Kennedy seat fiasco, they started it back in 2004, when the issue of Romney nominating President Kerry's successor came up. Remember?
That's why I made that crack about them swapping out Mass. electoral law every 15 minutes... because that's just about how often those partisan hacks were doing it. I get a chuckle at lefties whining that this PA thing is something new and different, or dreamed up by evil R neofascists. ;-)
Let's face it, if anything, the R greaseball insiders likely said: "Fair enough, boys and girls. It's on like Donkey Kong."
But I suspect this is more of a PA thing, as that Pittsburgh/Philly axis has long been a bone in local R throats.
Democrats whine now about EV splitting schemes? Oh those evil Republicans always pushing the boundaries farther! Well, except that the Dems came up with the idea and started the fight! Was there this outrage when they put an initiative on the Colorado ballot way back in 2004 to take some of W's votes? Just because the voters didn't go along doesn't change the fact they tried. And was there this outrage when the North Carolina Dems tried to push an EV split scheme through when they had full control but couldn't quite get a few of their own party on board? True, GOP retaliated with the California initiative and failed. But if they succeed in PA, all it proves is that the GOP is more competent at playing hardball.
ReplyDeleteRepublican legislators seem quite "confused" about the merits of the congressional district method. In Nebraska, Republican legislators are now saying they must change from the congressional district method to go back to state winner-take-all, while in Pennsylvania, Republican legislators are just as strongly arguing that they must change from the winner-take-all method to the congressional district method.
ReplyDeleteDividing a state's electoral votes by congressional district would magnify the worst features of the Electoral College system.
If the district approach were used nationally, it would be less fair and less accurately reflect the will of the people than the current system. In 2004, Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote, but 59% of the districts. Although Bush lost the national popular vote in 2000, he won 55% of the country's congressional districts.
The district approach would not provide incentive for presidential candidates to campaign in a particular state or focus the candidates' attention to issues of concern to the state. Under the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all laws(whether applied to either districts or states), candidates have no reason to campaign in districts or states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. In North Carolina, for example, there are only 2 districts (the 13th with a 5% spread and the 2nd with an 8% spread) where the presidential race is competitive. In California, the presidential race is competitive in only 3 of the state's 53 districts. Nationwide, there are only 55 "battleground" districts that are competitive in presidential elections. Under the present deplorable 48 state-level winner-take-all system, two-thirds of the states (including California and Texas) are ignored in presidential elections; however, seven-eighths of the nation's congressional districts would be ignored if a district-level winner-take-all system were used nationally.
Awarding electoral votes by congressional district could result in third party candidates winning electoral votes that would deny either major party candidate the necessary majority vote of electors and throw the process into Congress to decide.
Because there are generally more close votes on district levels than states as whole, district elections increase the opportunity for error. The larger the voting base, the less opportunity there is for an especially close vote.
Also, a second-place candidate could still win the White House without winning the national popular vote.
A national popular vote is the way to make every person's vote equal and guarantee that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states becomes President.
If the district approach were used nationally, it would be less fair and less accurately reflect the will of the people than the current system. In 2004, Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote, but 59% of the districts. Although Bush lost the national popular vote in 2000, he won 55% of the country's congressional districts.
ReplyDelete.
The only thing that shows is that the hard Left's bottled themselves up in urban areas, due to their own zeal for majority-minority gerrymandering. If a bunch of lefty districts are going 70-30, yeah, that means they'll have more popular votes than districts won. But that doesn't make it any more or less fair. It just means the Left likes gerrmandering themselves some plantations. If the antebellum Left reforms, that would go away.
Flatten out the districts, and we can talk about it. Many of those rorschact test districts are self imposed by the Left. They control their own destiny here.
.
.
.
Awarding electoral votes by congressional district could result in third party candidates winning electoral votes that would deny either major party candidate the necessary majority vote of electors and throw the process into Congress to decide.
.
You're saying that like it's a bad thing. It's not. Who cares about the "major parties"? They both suck. They need some competition. And if Congress has to decide an election every century or so... that's fine, and a good test of the system. It should be fragmented at times. Because we get fragmented at times.
That'd be fun, as a matter of fact. Pelosi woulda picked Obama in 2008. But I bet an R House wouldn't have picked McCain. And that would have been simply delicious. ;-)
.
.
.
Nationwide, there are only 55 "battleground" districts that are competitive in presidential elections.
.
You'd have to document that. Way more than that are competitive in Congressional elections, obviously, so your claim seems doubtful. And the lack of competition is almost totally a result of the gerrymander that the Left is in lust with.
.
.
.
Because there are generally more close votes on district levels than states as whole, district elections increase the opportunity for error. The larger the voting base, the less opportunity there is for an especially close vote.
.
And the smaller the voting base, the easier to snuff out voter fraud and cheating, and keep it from impacting other voters, and devaluing their vote.
Everybody's vote is already "equal"... within the district in which they reside, or whatever their state decides as to their counting. Don't like that? Well, there's a few dozen amendments to the Constitution, and yours can be the next.