Category Archives: electoral college

Rob Richie and Andrea Levien have written this article for Presidential Studies Quarterly. Here is the abstract:

The United States has reached an unprecedented level of inequality in presidential elections. In 2012, only 10 states drew the major party presidential candidates for postconvention campaign events, and those same 10 states attracted 99.6% of all general election television advertising spending by the campaigns and their allies. The remaining 41 spectator states (counting the District of Columbia) included all 38 states that had been similarly overlooked in 2008. This article details these inequalities and their roots in state statutes allocating electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis. It argues that states should end this inequality by enacting the National Popular Vote interstate compact, which would ensure that it is the popular vote in all 50 states and the District of Columbia that determines who becomes the president.

Geoffrey Calderaro has posted this draft on SSRN.  Here is the abstract:

The winner-take-all method of allocating Electoral College votes has led to a bifurcated nation in which presidential candidates actively campaign in highly contested “swing states” and virtually ignore voters residing in the many non-competitive states, all to the detriment of American democracy. In order to remedy the current inequities that permeate American presidential elections, a change is needed in the winner-take-all allocation method of Electoral College votes. Many propose that we elect our presidents by a National Popular Vote. However, this method would be a step in the wrong direction.

This Comment proposes that states adopt a Federal District Popular Vote (FDPV) allocation method, like that currently employed by Maine and Nebraska. There are three important advantages to the FDPV allocation method. First, the FDPV would compel candidates to actively campaign in dozens of competitive congressional districts located in otherwise non-competitive states, thus engaging millions of previously ignored Americans in the campaign. Second, voters supporting the minority party in each state would have an opportunity to award electoral votes to the candidate of their choice. Finally, the FDPV would stay true to the Framers’ intent for Federalism.

James Rooney blogs.

Retired Oregon Chief Justice Paul de Muniz has written this oped.

See here.

Vik Amar Justia column.

FairVote: “This new edition features an expanded section addressing myths about the Electoral College and the National Popular Vote, with a wide-ranging information about recounts, the effects of extreme weather on elections, out-of-state presidential electors, and much, much more. It is free to download the book (or individual chapters). Be sure to check FairVote’s work on this issue and the website of the organization leading the lobbying campaign to ensure that every vote in presidential elections is equal, National Popular Vote.”

See here.  And see this editorial on NPV.

Redrawing the United States as 50 states with equal population.

MORE from Robert Krulwich.

CBS Philly reports. See also The GOP’s Electoral Vote Gambit: Reasonably Popular but Doomed, which notes that winner-take-all electoral college allocations now are polling more popularly with Democrats than with Republicans.

Surprised about the collapse of the GOP effort? You shouldn’t be.

Interesting TPM article.

I’ll go out on a limb and say that after this brief flirtation we will fall into the familiar pattern of NPV being supported only in states with Democratic legislatures.

WaPo editorial.

The Fix: “A Republican-backed plan to change the way certain states allocate electoral votes has fizzled as quickly as it sprung onto the national consciousness. The slate of upcoming 2014 governor’s races is a major reason why that happened.”

I think there are also other reasons.

The Root reports.

I’m still betting against this happening.

Pennsylvania as the last possible GOP state looking to change their electoral college allocations this time around.

Politico reports. Shocking (Not!).

TPM: “Four states down, and just two remain. Key Republican officials in Virginia, Ohio, Florida, and Michigan are coming out against a RNC-backed scheme to rig the electoral vote in Democratic-leaning states in order to boost Republican presidential candidates. That leaves just Pennsylvania and Wisconsin as the remaining blue states with Republican statehouses actively considering the idea.”

End of the Democratic freak-out?

Martin Kich has written this post at the “Academe Blog.”

The Cleveland Plain Dealer reports.

Again, no surprise.

JS Online: “Gov. Scott Walker says he has a ‘real concern’ about a Republican idea to change the way the state awards its electoral votes, conceding the move could make Wisconsin irrelevant in presidential campaigns.”

No surprise.

Steve Benen: “There’s been some commentary of late that the fear of this scheme is excessive — Rick Hasen, I’m looking in your direction — and that Republicans almost certainly won’t follow through on this. We’ll find out soon enough. But for those keeping an eye on the larger effort, note that for every state in which the efforts are stumbling, there’s another in which the plan remains very much on the table.”

MORE from CBS News and the LA Times.

I’m not so sure about this.

As I indicate in my new Slate piece, I think it is highly unlikely these plans get enacted.

And since I wrote the piece the Va. governor and new key Senators have come out against it.

See here.

Joshua Spivak writes.

Slate has published my new commentary.  It begins:

They’re all talking about potential plans to change the method for electing the president in states like Virginia, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania—states that have Republican legislatures and governors but voted for Obama in 2012. Instead of awarding all of the state’s Electoral College votes to the presidential candidate getting the most votes in each of these states, under the proposed plans most of the Electoral College votes would be awarded to the winner in each congressional district—and thanks to Republican gerrymandering of those districts, such a scheme would be a windfall for Republicans.

The Tampa Bay Times reports.

I’ll have more to say on GOP electoral college machinations soon.

Weigel.

AP reports.

The Washington Times reports on potential electoral college allocation changes.

The Fix reports.

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: “The head of the Republican National Committee believes Wisconsin and other battleground states should change the way they allocate their Electoral College votes, but he said he is not inserting himself into how states decide to proceed.”

The OC Register reports.

Here.

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: “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.”

See also AP’s story, Changes Advocated in Pennsylvania Electoral Vote Counting.

Politics PA reports.

AP reports.

Political Wire reports.

Important post from FairVote.

And it could really happen.

Weigel:

In the busy mind of Virginia state Sen. Charles Carrico, voters can be divided into two species. The first: “people in my district,” which covers a swath of the state’s rural southwest. These voters are real people. The second species: voters in “metropolitan districts.” In 2012 and 2008, rural voters watched Democrats turn out that metro vote, which elected Barack Obama. That experience apparently taught Carrico and the people he represents that “their votes don’t mean anything.”

Mother Jones: “The states where Republicans have proposed changing Electoral College rules—Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, where legislation has been introduced, and Michigan and Ohio, where activists have pushed the idea (see below)—went for Barack Obama in both 2008 and 2012. There are no such GOP proposals, for example, in deep-red Texas.”