Selecting Electors
It’s an interesting proposal.
Madison - Gov. Scott Walker is open to having Wisconsin allocate its Electoral College votes based on results from each congressional district - a move that would offer Republicans a chance to score at least a partial victory in a state that has gone Democratic in the last seven presidential elections.
[...]
Like 47 other states, Wisconsin grants all its electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the statewide vote. Two states - Nebraska and Maine - give two electoral votes to the statewide winner and parcel out the rest by congressional district. As it happens, all their votes have gone to a single candidate, except in 2008, when one electoral vote in Omaha was given to Barack Obama.
Now, the news story paints this as a partisan debate, and it certainly is. It’s generally coming from states that went to Obama with Republican governors as a way to blunt Democratic presidential victories in their states. But let’s look at it from the perspective of good government.
I should stipulate that I do support the electoral college system. It has served us well. The way that states allocate electoral college voters has been done a lot of different ways over the years. In the past, some states have had voters directly elect the electors and not even vote for presidential candidates. States have had electors chosen by the state legislatures. States have allocated electors by percentage of the vote. In recent history, most states use a “winner take all” system and the winning political party selects the electors. But a few states continue to allocate electoral votes by congressional district. To be blunt, it’s completely up to the state. We can do it any way we want.
So let’s look at assigning Electoral College electors by congressional district. From the point of fairness, it makes some sense. Particularly in Wisconsin, we have some very red and some very blue areas. Five of Wisconsin’s eight congressional districts are currently held by Republicans, so such a proposal would currently benefit Republicans. But really only one - perhaps two - of those districts are rock-solid Republican districts. It wasn’t that long ago that five of them were held by Democrats. But splitting electors by congressional districts at least gives the minority some say in the presidential election. As it is, if one part wins by a single vote, then every single elector goes to the winner and the other 49.999% is left without any say.
From a political point of view, the winner take all system is great for Wisconsin. Let’s face it, with just ten elector votes, Wisconsin was a relatively small prize for a presidential candidate. Yet because we are a divided state and the electoral results were uncertain, the candidates spent an inordinate amount of time and money in Wisconsin. While many of us grew tired of the unending campaign, the other side of the coin is being Texas or New York, who were completely ignored.
All told, I think it’s an interesting and healthy exercise to examine how we do things and decide if it’s still the best way to do it. Just because Wisconsin has been allocating electors as it has for many years is no argument for it being the best way. I’m not confident that allocating electors by congressional district is the best method. In fact, I think it’s less agreeable than the winner take all method. But there are other ways. Both Republicans and Democrats should think about these things beyond the confines of recent elections and look to what is best for the people of Wisconsin.
I don’t like it.
I think it destroys the balance of power between legislative and executive branches.
If every state did this, whichever party controls the House of Representatives will, most likely, be the party with the president in power under this proposal if it was applied nationwide.
Sure, you may get a few districts that vote for a different party for the House seat and the president. But largely each district will vote same party down the ticket.
D.C. is best governed when parties are split. (Usually stuff cannot get done, which is a good thing for D.C.)
This proposal substantially increases the possibility one party will control House, Senate, and Presidency.
That is nearly always a bad thing.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 23, 2012 at 1851 hrs
Owen, you sound like you are trying to objectively look at what good government looks like. Give me a break! You’d be whistling a a different tune about good government if the Democrats had just gerrymandered the shit out of the state for the next decade!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 23, 2012 at 1903 hrs
Get lost, Dave Anderson. Go back to your mother’s basement with your fellow 9/11 truther scum.
Posted by Robert Goren on December 23, 2012 at 1906 hrs
#3 - Thanks for opening her kimono.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 23, 2012 at 1915 hrs
Dave, you currently have a small mind that views a small perspective. I hope that your perspective broadens.
Posted by Owen on December 23, 2012 at 1921 hrs
I like the idea. Why should my vote get diluted by some nutjobs in Mad town?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 23, 2012 at 1929 hrs
Can we also pass a federal law that requires that all Congressional districts be drawn by nonpartisan commissions in accordance with strict rules that require geographic compactness and competitiveness be used as the primary criteria, and not which half-competent incumbents we’re trying to protect?
As it is, I’m basically in agreement with Kevin. Of 435 Congressional districts, a presidential candidate wouldn’t have to so much as bat an eye at about 340 of them. If anything, one could reverse the “making votes count” argument and suggest that going to a system based on congressional districts further diminishes the voting power of minority party voters in those seats. Their votes for House already don’t matter, and under this new system, their votes for President wouldn’t matter either, but for the two electoral votes representing Senate seats that would presumably be winner take all.
To play devil’s advocate to my own argument, a state that drew its Congressional districts to be more competitive would theoretically make itself more relevant in presidential elections. Although that would mean incumbent Congressmen giving themselves more competitive seats, and we all know the likelihood of that happening.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on December 23, 2012 at 2008 hrs
Wow, I’m agreeing with Mr. Schuenemann. It’s a festivus miracle!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 24, 2012 at 0007 hrs
If you want this plan for every state, just go to straight popular vote and eliminate the gerrymandering.
If you went to congressional districts, there would be swing districts that the candidates would be targetting.
It would make California more interesting.
Would wisconsin be ignored? If we went with either idea, the candidates would have to indentify areas all over the country that they have to pick off votes.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 24, 2012 at 0703 hrs
Get lost, Dave Anderson. Go back to your mother’s basement with your fellow 9/11 truther scum.
Posted by Robert Goren on December 23, 2012 at 1906 hrsNice… can’t refute the idea so you resort to ad hominem attacks ... very mature
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 24, 2012 at 0824 hrs
greencarman,
I’ll celebrate out “agreement” as a Christmas miracle…but I’m sure the irony of my statement on the celebration might negate the “agreement” part.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 24, 2012 at 0847 hrs
Or ” why should my vote get diluted by some nut jobs in Waukesha and Washington County?”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 24, 2012 at 0924 hrs
I think the most important thing about dealing with the Electoral College is to keep the Fed out of it! It is a matter for the states to decide. We have enough federal encroachment. Why increase it?
Posted by MSgt Dale Day on December 24, 2012 at 1059 hrs
MSgt Dale Day,
The Fed should be involved because we’re voting on the leader of the country, not the leader of an individual state.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 24, 2012 at 1129 hrs
No. Not at all. The Consstitution says:
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress”
Federalism is precisely that: a federation of states.
Posted by Owen on December 24, 2012 at 1133 hrs
Interesting idea Owen, but as a conservative, I think this is a poor idea. Wisconsin won’t be a “blue state” forever. Pre-1988, the State voted Republican many many times. With Governor Walker’s reforms, and the rock star status of Paul Ryan and others, the day will come when Wisconsin goes GOP again.
If we passed something like this, we’d never again be relevant in Presidential Politics. Wisconsin (despite voting Dem since 88)is very much a swing state and we get significant attention from every Presidential Candidate. If this passed, Dems would ALWAYS get 3-7 votes, and the GOP would get 3-5 votes. This year, and likely for the foreeable future, the Dem would get 5 votes and the Rep would get 5 votes. Why would any candidate for president waste their time coming here under those terms?
I vote no. Governor Walker should focus (like he is) on JOBS JOBS JOBS. All other issues are irrelevant at the moment. When unemployment is below 5%, and the ecomony is churning along, then we can focus on things that might need tweaking.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 24, 2012 at 1213 hrs
I remember my lefty brother-in-law proposing the same changes when Bush was elected. Seems like the electoral college has been successful in keeping exclusive political control away from large population centers (read the coasts) and should remain unchanged.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 24, 2012 at 1619 hrs
It’s an attempt to capitalize on recent gerrymandering to make Wisconsin vote presidentially red in spite of the fact that more voters vote for Democrats than Republicans.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 25, 2012 at 0117 hrs
Kevin said it well. If it would increase chances of singe party control, it is a bad idea.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 26, 2012 at 1504 hrs
Total Entries: 21059
Total Comments: 146944
Most Recent Entry: 05/17/2013 05:57 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/18/2013 05:31 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 50
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/19/2013 04:23 pm
The most visitors ever was 663 on 09/02/2012 05:13 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).