In his blog at newyorker.com Hendrik Hertzberg keeps up the campaign for the National Popular Vote (N.P.V.) bill. I wrote about this wonderful reform last November 18 and repeat now my claim that it "deserves your support." If you are unfamiliar with the proposal, follow the above link, read and learn, then write your state legislator and demand that she (or he) support this needed change.
On January 7, in a post entitled "Three out of Eight Ain't Good," Hertzberg writes about election models of the 2008 contest that suggest the "wrong-winner problem," one of many gross deficiencies of the electoral college system, is a more considerable danger than we may imagine. The 2000 result, in which Al Gore, the canidate receiving the most votes, "lost" the election in the electoral college after the Supreme Court delivered Florida to Bush, was according to these models no fluke. The research is summarized in the following sentence from a memo by John Koza, originator of N.P.V., quoted in Hertzberg's post: "In three of Professor Holman's eight compilations, the winner of a majority of the electoral votes based on current state-by-state polling results is not the same presidential candidate as the winner of the national popular vote based on the latest available polls for the same time period."
The details are of particular interest to those of us in the aristocracy of the enlightened who, comprehending the manifest superiority of the Democratic candidates, cannot help but be obsessed with the "horse race." Candidates from both parties are potential victims of another split decision between the electoral college and voters. For example, in a McCain-Clinton matchup, which is more likely now than when the mock election was modeled in December, McCain is in danger of losing the electoral college despite being preferred by all voters, 47 to 42 percent. That is because, compared to the 2004 result, Clinton would trade Wisconsin, Oregon, and New Hampshire for Florida, Missouri, and Arkansas--a net gain of 22 electoral votes that boosts her above the magic number of 270.
For the record, the other split decisions occurred in matchups between Obama and Giuliani (Obama 49 to 40 percent but Giuliani wins 286 electoral votes) and Edwards and Giuliani (Edwards 53 to 44 percent but Giuliani wins 304 electoral votes). What would be the consequences for our "democracy" if a president were "elected" with nine percent less of the vote than a rival candidate? As I say, write your state legislator and urge adoption of the N.P.V. bill. Illinois is poised to join Maryland and New Jersey in the onboard category, which would leave states possessing 224 electoral votes still needed to begin electing presidents the same way we elect everyone else.
Perusing the state-by-state polling, one comes to the conclusion that the electoral college, a system in equilibrium in the last two elections, could look very different in 2008. Giuliani's electoral college strength, at least as recently as last December, rested on his ability to compete in the northeast (Connecticut, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania) and upper midwest (Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota). Overall, however, a breakup of the static result of the last two elections would likely favor the Democrats, as it appears now that Florida, Virginia, Arkansas, Ohio, Iowa, Missouri, Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada--all states carried by Bush in 2004--could fall into the Democratic column in 2008.
These models are of course based on polls that are only snapshots in time of particular races that probably will never occur. As the race takes shape, there will be fewer outliers in the polls--who really thinks Edwards would defeat Giuliani in Oklahoma?--and the landscape may settle toward the stasis that left, to disastrous effect, GWB on top. For those inclined to be cheerful, perhaps the most favorable sign is not polls but the actual votes that have so far been cast. In the last two presidential elections, 47 states went either for Bush or for the Democrat both times. The three exceptions are New Hampshire, Iowa, and New Mexico, and it happens that two of them are early primary (or caucus) states in which citizens have already made choices. In New Hampshire, about 284,000 people voted in the Democratic primary, compared to 233,000 on the Republican side. Obama, who finished second among the Democrats, outpolled McCain, who finished first among the Republicans, by around 16,000 ballots. Meanwhile, in Iowa, attendance at Democratic caucuses surpassed that at Republican caucuses by a factor of two. When George Will is glum, those of us on the other side should be of good cheer.
Comments