Liberals ♥ Democracy
By Frank Moraes
Jonathan Bernstein has written a really interesting article, "Democrats' Electoral College Edge." Who'd a thunk it? I've generally thought of the Electoral College as being something that benefited Republicans because of the tiny red states that get more than their fair share of electoral oomph. But that is no longer true. Political scientist Ben Highton looked at it and, indeed, the Electoral College is good for the Democrats. Very good.
Now what does this mean? If the popular vote comes out evenly divided, the Democrats would win the presidency 80% of the time. And the reason is very interesting. Blue states are getting bluer, so that pushes against Democrats getting an advantage from the Electoral College. But this is more than compensated for by the fact that Red states are getting redder at an even faster pace. To give you an example, the most heavily Obama-voting states were Hawaii and Vermont with 70.55% and 66.57% of the vote. Compare this to the most heavily Romney-voting states of Utah and Wyoming with 72.79% and 68.64%. Admittedly, Utah was hotter for Romney because he was a Mormon, but if you look at 2008, Utah's still number three for the Republican.
What I find fascinating about this is how what is happening to the Republicans on the federal level has long been happening to Democrats on the state level. While it's true that gerrymandering greatly harmed the Democratic Party after 2010, at least as big a problem is that Democrats are clustered in urban areas. So even when congressional districts are reasonably drawn, there is a tendency for the Democratic districts to be very Democratic. Now that same thing is happening on the federal level because increasingly, the hatred of the conservative movement is relegated to little states no one especially wants to visit: Oklahoma, Idaho, West Virginia, Arkansas, Alabama, Kentucky, Nebraska, Kansas. (For the record: I know there are a lot of fine people in those states.)
But Jonathan Bernstein said something else that I take issue with, "If these results hold up through 2016, expect the parties to begin flipping their positions on the Electoral College, perhaps very rapidly." Despite what readers may think, I don't consider myself a partisan. Yes, I am mostly against everything that the Republicans have to offer. But I'm more than willing to admit when someone like Rick Santorum has some reasonable things to say about economic policy. And although I am a registered Democrat, I largely disagree with the economic policy of that party. Even more than most so called independents, I go my own way. And on this issue, I value democracy far more than I value an advantage to the Democratic Party.
Where I really disagree with Bernstein is in his false equivalence. Yes, I'm sure that the Republicans will rush to the realization that the Electoral College is a Very Bad Thing™ (pending). But I suspect that Democrats -- other than the hyper-partisans -- will keep thinking that the Electoral College is a very bad thing. Because liberals actually do believe in democracy. But I will go this far in Bernstein's direction: it won't be high on Democrats' list of priorities.
I find the whole thing fascinating and I am glad that political scientists can look at it. But as much as I think democracy is an incredibly flawed system, I also think it is the best system yet devised for creating governments. I'm pleased that right now it greatly favors the less terrible party. But I am as much against it as ever. I can't put it any more clearly than the bumper sticker above: I ♥ Democracy!
(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)
Jonathan Bernstein has written a really interesting article, "Democrats' Electoral College Edge." Who'd a thunk it? I've generally thought of the Electoral College as being something that benefited Republicans because of the tiny red states that get more than their fair share of electoral oomph. But that is no longer true. Political scientist Ben Highton looked at it and, indeed, the Electoral College is good for the Democrats. Very good.
Now what does this mean? If the popular vote comes out evenly divided, the Democrats would win the presidency 80% of the time. And the reason is very interesting. Blue states are getting bluer, so that pushes against Democrats getting an advantage from the Electoral College. But this is more than compensated for by the fact that Red states are getting redder at an even faster pace. To give you an example, the most heavily Obama-voting states were Hawaii and Vermont with 70.55% and 66.57% of the vote. Compare this to the most heavily Romney-voting states of Utah and Wyoming with 72.79% and 68.64%. Admittedly, Utah was hotter for Romney because he was a Mormon, but if you look at 2008, Utah's still number three for the Republican.
What I find fascinating about this is how what is happening to the Republicans on the federal level has long been happening to Democrats on the state level. While it's true that gerrymandering greatly harmed the Democratic Party after 2010, at least as big a problem is that Democrats are clustered in urban areas. So even when congressional districts are reasonably drawn, there is a tendency for the Democratic districts to be very Democratic. Now that same thing is happening on the federal level because increasingly, the hatred of the conservative movement is relegated to little states no one especially wants to visit: Oklahoma, Idaho, West Virginia, Arkansas, Alabama, Kentucky, Nebraska, Kansas. (For the record: I know there are a lot of fine people in those states.)
But Jonathan Bernstein said something else that I take issue with, "If these results hold up through 2016, expect the parties to begin flipping their positions on the Electoral College, perhaps very rapidly." Despite what readers may think, I don't consider myself a partisan. Yes, I am mostly against everything that the Republicans have to offer. But I'm more than willing to admit when someone like Rick Santorum has some reasonable things to say about economic policy. And although I am a registered Democrat, I largely disagree with the economic policy of that party. Even more than most so called independents, I go my own way. And on this issue, I value democracy far more than I value an advantage to the Democratic Party.
Where I really disagree with Bernstein is in his false equivalence. Yes, I'm sure that the Republicans will rush to the realization that the Electoral College is a Very Bad Thing™ (pending). But I suspect that Democrats -- other than the hyper-partisans -- will keep thinking that the Electoral College is a very bad thing. Because liberals actually do believe in democracy. But I will go this far in Bernstein's direction: it won't be high on Democrats' list of priorities.
I find the whole thing fascinating and I am glad that political scientists can look at it. But as much as I think democracy is an incredibly flawed system, I also think it is the best system yet devised for creating governments. I'm pleased that right now it greatly favors the less terrible party. But I am as much against it as ever. I can't put it any more clearly than the bumper sticker above: I ♥ Democracy!
(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)
Labels: democracy, Democrats, Electoral College, Republicans
posted by Michael J.W. Stickings at
11:30 AM
1 Comments:
Note, that by 2016, The National Popular Vote bill could guarantee the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by replacing state winner-take-all laws for awarding electoral votes.
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of pre-determined outcomes. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80% of the states that now are just 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.
The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of Electoral College votes—that is, enough to elect a President (270 of 538). The candidate receiving the most popular votes from all 50 states (and DC) would get all the 270+ electoral votes of the enacting states.
The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founders. It is the product of decades of change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.
The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founders in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Historically, major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).
Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls
in recent or past closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA --75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%;
in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%;
in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and
in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%.
Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.
The bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, Republican, Democratic, and purple states with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
NationalPopularVote
Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc
By
toto, at 12:32 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home