Gerald F. Seib has this Wall Street Journal article, noting that only 24 U.S. House districts last month voted for one major party for President and for the other major party for U.S. House member. However, the article notes that the election returns aren’t final and there are seven races in which the calculations might yet change.
Of the 24 districts, 15 voted for President Obama and yet elected a Republican member of the House; 9 voted for Mitt Romney and elected a Democrat to the House. Thanks to PoliticalWire for the link.
Those who advocate that each U.S. House district should elect its own presidential elector should note that if their plan were in effect, Romney would be elected, even though he lost the national popular vote by four percentage points.
“Those who advocate that each U.S. House district should elect its own presidential elector”
Proportional division of the electoral vote within each state is a better plan. Candidates other than just Democrats and Republicans have the best chance of winning electors under this plan. It creates more battlegrounds (not as few as the current plan, nor the fairly few battleground congressional districts, nor just the largest media markets only like under NPV). And it’s fairly, although not perfectly, representative of the popular vote, while maintaining the historically important role of the states.
ABOLISH the EVIL timebomb Electoral College.
The E.C. timebomb went off in 1860 — result about 750,000 DEAD Americans on both sides in 1861-1865.
—-
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
@1… “while maintaining the historically important role of the states.”
Who cares about the states? What good are they?
“Those who advocate that each U.S. House district should elect its own presidential elector should note that if their plan were in effect, Romney would be elected, even though he lost the national popular vote by four percentage points.”
This is a complete fallacy.
If the Maine/Nebraska system had been in place nationwide for the 2012 election, there would have been an entirely different campaign. The Democrats and Republicans would have focused on different states and competitive districts. There would have been many changes in the voting decisions of the people who voted and a large change in turnout. In addition, although a sitting POTUS would likely still be the candidate, the Republican nomination process would have been affected as well, meaning Romney may not have been the R nominee.
Furthermore, since a complete campaign strategy recognizing the realities of the ME/NE system, the parties would focus more on selecting Congressional candidates and winning house seats in coordination with the POTUS campaign.
With such a changed race, it is more likely and just as logical to assert that under the Maine/Nebraska system, the Democrats would have re-elected Obama and carried a majority of the associated house districts as well and thereby retaken control of the House in 2012.
It is rather amazing that ANY of the gerrymander rigged U.S. Rep. districts did NOT vote the same for Prez and U.S. Rep.
AUTOMATIC known prior results from 2008-2010 data used to rig the 2012 districts.
Perhaps the odd 24 due to local migration stuff — during this 2006-XXXX Great Depression II event ???
—-
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V. — before it is too late.
There are no historically important roles for the states anymore. That question was decided in 1865 and then hammered home by the Commerce Clause decision of the Supreme Court last century.
“Who cares about the states? What good are they?”
The more pertinent question is what goes the union? Wouldn’t we be better off if it was dissolved, with every state becoming a completely independent nation?
@6 Au contraire.
You may have noticed that marijuana prohibition is being gradulally nullified state by state, for example.
With regard to the recent election, if we assume only Republican-controlled Purple States had shifted to Maine-Nebraska Method, and the Democrats didn’t re-focus their efforts onto competitive House districts in these states, yes, Mitt would been elected.
But, if there was notice, the shift of Republican-controlled Purple States could possibly have induced a Constitutional Amendment for all states to adopt the Maine-Nebraska Method or some method involving PR, the result of which would have likely have been Obama’s re-election, given his margin of victory.
As for the possibility of third parties picking up some EVs with state-by-state PR in the Electoral College, this would sometimes throw the contest into the House of Reps, with state delegations subject to unit voting. This would be monstrously disproportionate to population.
First, it is high time the back-up plan shifts to something like each MC (House and Senate) having 1 vote, and electing the President and Vice President (as a slate) in a joint meeting.
And, second, it would be a good thing for third parties every now and then to be able to bargain in the Electoral College so as to play the role of kingmaker in return for support on a single issue. Think of the potential influence of the LP on marijuana legalization, or the the Green Party on the environment. This kind of bargaining would off-set with usual “vote-siphoning” effect of third parties (which hurts their interests) with a potentially powerful kingmaker effect.
Oh, for what it’s worth, other than getting involved in every conflict in the world, being as we are the world’s only superpower, and therefore the world’s policeman, I don’t see any justification nowadays of having a huge nation.
“…if we assume only Republican-controlled Purple States had shifted to Maine-Nebraska Method, and the Democrats didn’t re-focus their efforts onto competitive House districts in these states, yes, Mitt would been elected.”
Why would you ASSuME such a ridiculous scenario.
1) You are assuming that the parties would follow the same strategy when the conditions on the ground were manifestly different.
2) You are assuming that the Democrats are unbelievably stupid, when the actions they took to defeat Romney prove the opposite. Obama should have lost this election, yet the Ds won it.
3) You are assuming that the same voters would have turned out to vote and would have voted the same way. Completely illogical to make such an assumption.
With competitive Electoral Districts there would be a completely different group voting, more GOTV in the competitive districts and newly competitive states, changes in advertising strategy and focus, reallocation of campaign resources, different locations for public appearances by the candidates, even a different Republican nominee is possible.
***
Nationwide adoption of the Maine/Nebraska system in the EC is a change that benefits all voters and will improve the Electoral College system to maintain the federal/state balance of power while making voter prefernces more real in each district so that the final Electoral Vote will closely match the desires of the electorate within our federation of States.
The Maine/Nebraska system will give every voter in every EC district (every Congressional District) the chance to see his or her vote count. Voter turnout will be greatly increased as will public interest in the POTUS campaigns in the future.