June 20, 2004
Electoral Calculus
On Friday I was talking with my Coloradoan friend Chris about the fascinating new Colorado ballot initiative that seeks to change the way the state allocates its electoral votes. Right now the state uses the same winner-take-all method used by almost every other state (exceptions: Maine and Nebraska). But if this particular ballot initiative were to pass in November, Colorado would start allocating electoral votes proportionally based on the statewide vote total, starting with this 2004 election. In the immediate short term, this would mean that instead of Bush getting 9 votes and Kerry getting 0 (the very likely scenario now), Bush would get 5 or 6 and Kerry would get 3 or 4. If only Colorado had split their votes up this way in 2000, Al Gore would have received 3 out of 8 electoral votes and would have won the electoral vote 270-268.
In the medium term, this change would drastically alter the way candidates approach Colorado. A proportional split would certainly be more representative of the wishes of the people, but if only one state out of 50 were to make this change, candidates would concentrate on the all-or-nothing prizes and not waste their time trying to get that one extra electoral vote. I also worry that something like this would really up the legal-tricks "win-on-a-technicality" ante that we've seen far too much of during the last 4 years (Florida 2000, the California recall, Texas redistricting, etc.). I want Bush to lose by whatever means necessary but it'd be nice if it was via a decisive landslide and not just because his legal team was slightly outmanuevered this time or because someone used their wealth to fund a strange ballot initiative.
In the long term, maybe this sort of change would help bring about drastic electoral reform. If every state allocated their votes proportionally, we'd be getting close to having a truly national popular-vote election that would value the votes of a New York Republican and a Idaho Democrat exactly the same as those of the voters who happen to live in swing states. Probably won't happen for a long time, if ever, but it's a nice thought. Of course the downside to that would be that there would no longer be any point in playing with this awesome interactive electoral map that is still up on John Edwards' campaign site. My overly optimistic 337-201 victory for Kerry is pictured above. Click on the preceding link or on the image above to view past election results or play around with 2004 possibilities.
Another election-related thread from some Friday night conversations....is the voter registration effort headed up by hip-hop impresario Russell Simmons going to kick into high gear sometime soon? I haven't really heard much about it but maybe it's already hard at work. Simmons spoke out against the Iraq War and has said that he wants to help sway the election against Bush. Here's hoping that his group is going to be bringing the noise over the next few months.
Posted by Tim at June 20, 2004 05:31 PMThus far, the hip hop community has not impressed me with their level of participation in the upcoming election. I really expected a much larger prescence. I do hope this changes soon.
-pm
Posted by: Paul at June 21, 2004 09:52 AMDuring the '00 imbroglio George Stephanopopopopopopopolous argued that we have to keep the Electoral College to prevent disasterous post-election legal manuverings. His example was of a popular election won by 250,000 votes, where the loser then automatically tries to set up enough legal challenges to change 100 votes in each of 2,500 precincts. The court cases run through May of the next year and we don't having a President, which is probably a good thing. I don't *like* the Electoral College, because it's undemocratic, but our political system is so huge and unwieldy and so driven by money and legal teams that I don't know that we can easily do without it.
Putting Louisiana and Arkansas in Kerry's win column isn't overly optimistic, it's crack-induced.
Kerry is generally doing a lousy job wooing black and latino voters.
Posted by: JPH at June 21, 2004 11:15 AMPoint well-taken...but I'm not so sure that they're absolutely impossible. If any non-Florida Southern states get peeled off, those are the most likely ones and having Edwards or another Southerner as a running mate would help Kerry greatly there. One recent Arkansas poll had Bush and Kerry tied (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Arkansas_May.htm) and Kerry has been reportedly closing the gap in Louisiana and forcing Bush to run ads there when he thought he wouldn't have to. Anyway, the good thing is that you can subtract AR, LA, NV, AZ, NM, and WV from that overly optimistic map and Kerry still barely wins....that's assuming the big wins in Florida and Missouri, of course.
Posted by: Tim at June 21, 2004 12:25 PMActually, you can take Florida away too, Missouri would be the big win required for a victory. I love playing with this map...
Posted by: Tim at June 21, 2004 12:39 PMI've seen quite a few stories on swing states that touch on Missouri and Ohio. Being from Ohio, I'd agree with you that it'll propably go Red, there's just no talking to some of those people. Cleveland is still very democratic, but the population is shrinking up there. Columbus and Censor-nati are both hardcore Republican cities. With both of those areas combining with the rest of the rural parts of the state I don't think Kerry has a chance.
Kerry really needs to work on Missouri IMO, from the coverage I've seen, the polls are very tight. It would appear that the large urban areas like St. Louis would be where Kerry can win the most votes. I'm not familar with Kansas City, MO, but based on the voting trends of the that area, the further west you go (but before the coast), the more right the population tends to vote. The tough part is I don't think a 'Southern' running mate like Edwards necessarily helps him there, but on the same token, I don't think picking a midwesterner like Gephardt helps him there or anywhere else for that matter.
I still think that he should pick Edwards, but it's interesting that even with him on board, most don't think a Kerry/Edwards ticket would be able to win in the majority of southern states.
KC, MO will be a Kerry win. Their current mayor spent the '70s as a pretty outspoken womens' rights person and acts as if she is a big believer in expanding the role of govt., and she won her last election pretty handily. The city is truly urban, poorer, and ~40% minority, all things that point towards a Democratic vote. The wealthy white suburbs are over the state line in and around KC, Kansas. The thing to remember about MO is that it is part Southern, part Great Plains, and part Midwest Rust Belt. East/West don't always work there.
TubaFrenzy!
This has no relevance to your post...but, dude, hi!
This is catherine c., by the by...
Posted by: catherine at June 22, 2004 03:27 PM