Election 2000: What If The Electoral Votes Were Distributed Via Congressional District?

U. S. Election Atlas ^ | June 18, 2002 | Recovering_Democrat

[Recovering_Democrat]

The Election Atlas is a great resource, and since I had some time on my hands recently I decided to use it to research the 2000 election a bit. You may know Maine and Nebraska distribute their electoral votes differently than the other 49 bodies (48 states and DC). In all other states, the electoral votes are given a "winner take all" status: thus George W. Bush got all 25 of Florida's votes, even though he only won the state by 537 votes.

Electoral votes, you remember, are representative of each states Congressional delegation: Florida has 23 House seats and two Senators...equaling 25 votes. Montana has one House seat and two Senators...equaling three votes.

Maine and Nebraska distribute their electoral votes thusly: the candidate who wins a particular congressional district gets the electoral vote. The candidate who wins the statewide vote gets TWO electoral votes: the votes represented by the state's two senators.

I wondered what would have happened in the 2000 election if each state followed the same rules as Nebraska and Maine. Here is the summary of what I found:

George W. Bush wins the Electoral College.
Final Vote: 283-264.

[Recovering_Democrat]

Posted fyi. I thought it was interesting. Also encouraging, considering the popularity of the President now. He may have some coattails in 2002 and 2004 if he can continue keeping the public satisfied with his performance. :)

[Recovering_Democrat]

Oh yes, Needed to win: 270.

[snopercod]

If you have time on your hands, check out the former "county unit system" in Georgia.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Thanks for the post, verrry interesting.

Hoping your recovery is continuing nicely.

[NYS_Eric]

I think it was Michael Barone who did a similar analysis, and on Brit Hume's show the other night when they were talking about redistricting (due to the census), I think they said that "Bush states" had a net gain of 7 or 8 seats over "Gore states".

So the news might even be rosier for 2004.

[jae471]

Final Vote: 283-264.

While I have no doubt that Bush would have won by a larger margin (the Red/Blue map is proof of this), these numbers don't add up.

There are 538 electoral votes (435 reps + 100 senators + 3 for DC). 283+264 = 547. Where did the extra 9 votes come from?

[Recovering_Democrat]

I hadn't heard. :) That is great news. And I firmly believe the President's popularity would be enough today to carry the close states of Oregon, New Mexico, Wisconsin and Iowa. It would be a stompin' of Algore.

[Recovering_Democrat]

Good point. Let me check. :) I did this pretty fast. Hold tight. Let me look at my numbers.

[PhiKapMom]

Here is the difference in the Electoral College:

Before Reapportionment:

2000 -- Bush 271; Gore 267

After Electoral Reapportionment:

2004 -- Bush 278; Gore 260

That would be the number of electoral votes that Pres Bush would receive if he won the same States in 2004 he did in 2000!

[Publius]

From 1788 to 1824, most states had their legislatures choose the members of the Electoral College. Those states that permitted voters to choose the Electors generally used the formula you have suggested. The election of 1824 was the last one where the legislatures chose Electors -- primarily because that election ended up in the House for a decision, and the House chose someone who did not have a plurality of either popular votes or electoral votes.

The two-party system as we know it today first came into being in the election of 1828. From then forward, states moved away from your formula to the winner-take-all formula we know today.

After the close call in 1968 where the election almost ended up in the House, Senators Everett Dirksen of Illinois and Karl Mundt of South Dakota -- both Republicans -- proposed a constitutional amendment that would have mandated your congressional district formula upon the states. Interest was high for a time but flagged in the mid-Seventies when a competing amendment was introduced that would have instituted true popular elections for president. Neither amendment got through Congress.

Maine and Nebraska have taken a good step toward electoral reform. I'd like to see the idea spread further.

[Publius]

From 1788 to 1824, most states had their legislatures choose the members of the Electoral College. Those states that permitted voters to choose the Electors generally used the formula you have suggested. The election of 1824 was the last one where the legislatures chose Electors -- primarily because that election ended up in the House for a decision, and the House chose someone who did not have a plurality of either popular votes or electoral votes.

The two-party system as we know it today first came into being in the election of 1828. From then forward, states moved away from your formula to the winner-take-all formula we know today.

After the close call in 1968 where the election almost ended up in the House, Senators Everett Dirksen of Illinois and Karl Mundt of South Dakota -- both Republicans -- proposed a constitutional amendment that would have mandated your congressional district formula upon the states. Interest was high for a time but flagged in the mid-Seventies when a competing amendment was introduced that would have instituted true popular elections for president. Neither amendment got through Congress.

Maine and Nebraska have taken a good step toward electoral reform. I'd like to see the idea spread further.

[aristeides]

The virtue of the Maine-Nebraska system is that it limits the effects of electoral fraud to those congressional districts in which it occurs.

[muleboy]

thanks for the post.

As it stands now, the Presidential election is effectively 50 races instead of 1, which allows candidates to target specific states and write-off others.

In my opinion it would be much better if all other states adopted the Maine/Nebraska method. This would create a much more diverse and comprehensive Presidential campaign whereby candidates would attempt to pick off electoral votes within vast states, while giving voters in different congressional districts a more effective and representative vote.

[Straight Vermonter]

Dems would cry forever about this system because states with low populations like Alaska, and the Dakotas (all red states) are over represented in the House.

[Torie]

I have said it before, and I will say it again. Awarding electoral votes by congressional district is an absolutely insane idea. The party winner of the presidency for the decade could all be wrapped up by who gets the largest share of the gerrymandering pie, and the stakes riding on the gerrymander would be huge. Also, presidential candidates as the congressional districts are currently configured would really only need to campaign, and send mailers into, and advertise in, about 30 congressional districts. The rest would be irrelevant.

[Recovering_Democrat]

A quick check of my math shows some errors in tabulation, but I'm still not at the right number. My current re-addition shows Bush wins 281-263, but that still leaves us at 544...6 heavy. Hmmm. Back to the drawing board.

But I am certain of the outcome: Bush would have won. BIG TIME.

[aristeides]

It may be true that only 30 congressional districts are competitive, but isn't that largely because the system has been rigged so much in favor of House incumbents? Is it really true that only 30 or so districts would be competitive in presidential races?

Also, aren't you ignoring the two at-large electoral votes for each state? That's 102 electoral votes. And I would think at least 50 or so of those would be competitive.

[aristeides]

True that the congressional-district system would give a lot of weight to gerrymanders. But the current system gives a lot of weight to electoral fraud in the cities. In my opinion, that's worse.

[GraniteStateConservative]

	ACTUAL RESULTS				MAINE-NEBRASKA RESULTS				DIFFERENCE IN PLANS
YEAR	DEMS	REPS	OTHERS	WINNER	DEMS	REPS	OTHERS	WINNER	DEMS	REPS	OTHERS
1960	303	219	15	Kennedy	252	280	5	Nixon	-51	61	-10
1964	486	52	0	Johnson	466	72	0	Johnson	-20	20	0
1968	191	301	46	Nixon	190	290	58	Nixon	-1	-11	12
1972	17	520	0	Nixon	62	476	0	Nixon	45	-44	-1
1976	297	240	1	Carter	269	269	0	Tie	-28	29	-1
1980	49	489	0	Reagan	141	397	0	Reagan	92	-92	0
1984	13	525	0	Reagan	69	469	0	Reagan	56	-56	0
1988	111	426	1	Bush	161	377	0	Bush	50	-49	-1
1992	370	168	0	Clinton	323	215	0	Clinton	-47	47	0
1996	379	159	0	Clinton	345	193	0	Clinton	-34	34	0
2000	266	271	1	Bush	250	288	0	Bush	-16	17	-1

[Morgan in Denver]

I agree with you. Besides, the whole concept of state rights comes into play and I do not think most people would want the populous states to dominate elections. Too many people are too quick to dismiss the Tenth Amendment and the rights of states. The USA is/was created of united states and states should develop their own formula for elections.