Re: 28th Amendment

edcohn · Thu, 09 Nov 2000 08:00:42 -0800

"The one change I would suggest is the adoption
of the proportional electoral vote as Maine and
Nebraska have it. The vote in each state is recognized
with the 2 at large votes, and each district gets a
voice. It's closer to the popular vote, but still
retains insulation - and I like the symmetry with the
congressional setup. I think it would work."

If I'm not
mistaken, awarding electoral votes by congressional
district would actually _increase_ the chances that the
popular vote winner would lose the electoral vote. The
1960, 1968, and 1976 elections were all substantially
closer in the popular vote than in the electoral vote,
and I believe that if electoral votes had been
awarded proportionally, the popular vote loser would have
won in the electoral college in at least one of these
elections (1968?). But it's been a really long time since
I've read up on this stuff, so I don't remember for
sure.

"Keep in mind that if the vote were popular, you would
have seen Gore and Bush spend all of their time in the
major markets, and would have ignored a lot of other
states."

I find this argument more convincing, but I don't
quite buy it either. After all, most presidential
candidates already focus on the big markets--there probably
would be a change even more in that direction, but I
don't think the change would be as clear-cut as you
suggest. And how much did the candidates really campaign
in small swing states anyway? New Hampshire, after
all, was a small swing state that saw much less action
than I'd expected, for example.

At the same
time, abolishing the electoral college would provide
incentives to the candidates to campaign more actively in
places they wouldn't dream of going under the current
system. Why should Al Gore try to raise Hispanic turnout
in Texas under the current system, if he knows he's
going to lose the state anyway? Why should George W.
Bush try to get out the Republican vote in upstate New
York, if the Empire State is firmly in the Democratic
column? Without the electoral college, everyone's vote
would be equally important, and campaigns wouldn't be
aimed mostly at swing voters in swing states.

In
short, abolishing the electoral college might lead to a
slightly greater focus on the big media markets, but I'm
not sure the change would be terribly clear-cut--and
even so, I think it would be worth it to ensure that
the winner of the popular vote actually won the
election.

--Ed