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

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

[Illbay]

This was cussed and discussed at length back in 2000.

[Torie]

Ya, I am ignoring the 2 electoral votes per state, but I really can't see the candidates doing a heavy media barrage in Pennsylvania over 2 electoral votes. I think 30 is a good number for competitive CD districts, although of course it varies by each campaign. The number of really competitive CD districts this election cycle is more like 15.

[Fish out of Water]

fyi

[aristeides]

You're wrong. Adopting the Maine-Nebraska system nationwide would not weaken small states, it would strengthen them. No longer would presidential candidates concentrate so much on the big blocks of electoral votes from the big states. Instead, campaigns would probably be much more national, with due attention paid to the small states, as they have more representation in the Electoral College than their population dictates (not only do the smallest states have at least one representative in the House no matter how small their population -- all states, no matter how small, have two senators.)

[aristeides]

True, they wouldn't do a heavy barrage in the big states. Instead, campaigns would be national to a much greater extent. Would that be bad?

[Recovering_Democrat]

Granite: thanks for clearing this up! :) Can you source that, or did you build the table?? Thanks again...guess I should leave statistical tabulating to the professionals!
rd
P.S. Interesting 1976 result...and I wonder how the House of Representatives would've broken the tie. My gut tells me the Democrat House would have voted for Carter, but I also know the 'rats detested Carter's "holier than thou" attitude...and they were reasonably comfortable with their moderate-liberal pal from the House, Ford.

I'm guessing Carter would've won anyway, but the vote might have been much more close--not a party line vote.

[aristeides]

Remember that when the House votes for president, each state delegation has one vote. Did the Dems control a majority of state House delegations in '76?

[Atlas Sneezed]

Just as I reply to those who talk about Gore winning the popular vote by reminding them if that were the rule, Bush would have campaigned harder to win more Texas votes, and the popular vote would have probably gone to him, I must note that if electoral votes were apportioned by district, the Democrats would have cheated differently, to make the results much closer than the numbers indicate.

[GraniteStateConservative]

The Rhodes Cook Letter, May 2001

I had a devil of a time finding this info!

[Atlas Sneezed]

I disagree. The closer you get to a polular vote (with smaller districts) the more candidates will campaign to large TV markets.

[NativeNewYorker]

Net net, high tax (Dem states) are losing population to lower tax (GOP states).

[Torie]

Sort of like California eh?

[Morgan in Denver]

I certainly could be wrong, it happens. My point, however, was the states have the right to control how they wish to vote and have their total votes applied. It is also my understanding that the last time districts voted, the election process was thrown into the House of Representatives, a situation I would rather avoid. I can see benefits of doing your way but I continue to prefer the way it is now.

Democrats cannot play the game fairly the way it is today, handling electoral votes, and I think having more room for mischief could make it worse.

[Galatians513]

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

EXACTAMUNDO! The Florida debacle would never have occurred. And GW would have won a number of votes from my home state of Iowa, which is conservative but for the major cities (Des Moines, Cedar Rapids/Iowa City)...

[adingdangdoo]

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

Yep, the Florida battle would have been over just two electoral votes (three, if Palm Beach county was close, which I doubt). Awarding electoral votes by CD seems to be much fairer, and limits the effects of vote fraud much better than the current winner-take-all format.

[adingdangdoo]

I thought about the possibility of awarding electoral votes by Congressional Districts, and I think the Democrats would never go for it:

1) 100 votes would be awarded in fifty bundles of two. The Republicans have the edge here as they tend to win a larger number of smaller states, i.e. the states with less urban population. As George Will would put it, the Republicans win by playing "small ball" while the Democrats swing for the fences with the big states (California, New York, Michigan, etc.). Anyway, this means the Dems would be spotting the Pubbies a 20-24 vote advantage out of the gate.

2) 435 votes would be based upon the winner of a specific region where a Representative's seat is available. Assuming most people are party-line voters, the current House makeup gives the Pubbies a 223-212 advantage (There are two Independents whose districts would probably break down as one for the Dems and one for the GOP).

3) Okay, the District of Columbia is a 3 point play for the Dems. :)

Anyway, the Democrats would not support such a concept when they have disadvantages in both CD and state support. Besides, electoral votes by CD also leaves open the possibility of a third party candidate picking up some electoral votes, something NEITHER party wants.

[BillyBoy]

Kalifornia should choose their electional votes by individual congressional districts. Right now, just about everyone on the coast votes solid 'RAT and the rest of the state votes strongly GOP, but the coast always managed to dictate where the state falls because they have a higher population.

Either that or split Kalifornia into two states. We could have a new state called "Sierra" which would be almost as large as the "old" California, but provide at least a dozen Republican electors.

[BillyBoy]

Here's some states where Bush would pick up additional electional votes if the congressional district system was in place during the 2000 election (Bush districts in blue):

It especially helps in Illinois, Michigan, and California, where Gore won by a "clear" margin but his support was limited to urban cesspools and rural union (miners and stuff) areas. The only thing I can't figure out is how the heck Gore carried Illinois' 11th district (represented by conservative Republican Jerry Weller who ALWAYS wins by a big margin)?

Oddly enough, Gore got only 0.5% of the popular vote in Wisconsin, but he won all but three of the congressional districts. (Must be a 'RAT drawn map).

[Theodore R.]

Yes, BUT, while SD may "approve" of Bush, that does not mean that SD is anywhere nearly ready to retire either Johnson or Daschle from the U.S. Senate. Similarly, while Bush may win GA in 2004 over any Democrat, that does not mean that GA will vote out Miller or Cleland. Ditto, LA with Breaux and Landrieu. Bush's popularity is separate from the Republican senatorial (mis)fortunes.

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

Courtesy of Human Events