In case you hadn't noticed, things have been a bit slow around here this week. I've been out of town, and though I'll continue to be for the next week or two, the beach won't be pulling me away from my laptop as much in the coming week. So even though July has gotten off to a slow start here at FHQ, I'll hopefully make amends this week. I'll have a new electoral college map ready to roll out in the morning and have a couple of other interesting (I think) posts for later in the week.
Also, with results like the Montana poll the other day (more on that tomorrow), the temptation is to start doing a daily update of the electoral college map. However, I'm going to keep it a bi-weekly analysis until probably Labor Day. At that point, I'll shift to daily update when the real (or traditional) campaign begins.
Recent Posts:
Happy 4th of July!!!!
The Electoral College Map (7/2/08)
Did Obama Bounce Everywhere in June?
Saturday, July 5, 2008
Friday, July 4, 2008
Happy 4th of July!!!!
It was just 232 short years ago that the cornerstone for the US system of presidential selection was laid. So thanks Founding Fathers, and yes, especially you, John Hancock (You were aiming for a blurb in an FHQ post lo those many years ago, weren't you?) for declaring American independence. Over 200 years of electoral evolution later, we've had an election even the Framers would have been entertained by. And while you're dining on hamburgers and hot dogs today, you too can ponder what the Founders would have thought of 2008.
What would they have thought of the Clinton-Obama nomination battle?
Would they have found the increased participation in the primaries beneficial to American democracy?
Given the 3/5ths compromise (or the language concerning "all men being created equal), what would the prevailing mindset have been among the Founders concerning an African American (or a woman) being among the most viable presidential candidates? Or given life expectancy at the time, what would they have thought of a 72 year old (in November) running for president?
Happy 4th everyone!
Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (7/2/08)
Did Obama Bounce Everywhere in June?
The Electoral College Map (6/29/08)
What would they have thought of the Clinton-Obama nomination battle?
Would they have found the increased participation in the primaries beneficial to American democracy?
Given the 3/5ths compromise (or the language concerning "all men being created equal), what would the prevailing mindset have been among the Founders concerning an African American (or a woman) being among the most viable presidential candidates? Or given life expectancy at the time, what would they have thought of a 72 year old (in November) running for president?
Happy 4th everyone!
Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (7/2/08)
Did Obama Bounce Everywhere in June?
The Electoral College Map (6/29/08)
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
The Electoral College Map (7/2/08)
Thirteen new polls in 9 states since Sunday clarified the electoral college map a bit further. The closer the campaign gets to November, the clearer the state of the game is going to appear. Georgia, for instance, continues to tread the line between being a strong or lean state for McCain. All that does is put the Peach state right at the cut line for states in which Obama can play offense. There has been some movement in Georgia's weighted average but that number continues to hover around that 10% margin. The longer that back and forth persists (without trending one way or the other), the less likely the Peach state is to actually be competitive in November.
Other than Georgia, Massachusetts was the only other state to have switched categories since the weekend. The Bay state moved from being an Obama lean to being a more comfortably strong state for the Illinois senator. Obviously, this pulls Massachusetts in line with where it would be expected to be given its past voting history. Some early tighter polls have kept Massachusetts under the 10% mark, but with the inclusion of more information, those polls are now acting as outliers in the formula.
And what about the map? Well, both Georgia and Massachusetts get darker, but the underlying electoral college breakdown remains the same. Obama leads McCain by 298 electoral votes to 240. The Obama part of the map continues to solidify. Very few states are still "leans" for him. Most states that are in shades of blue are either solidly Obama or toss ups favoring the Illinois senator. The movement out of the lean category for Obama has been in the direction of more strongly supporting Obama as opposed to becoming any more weakly associated with him. For McCain, the story is a bit different. His "toss up" numbers have been fairly static for a couple of weeks now while there has been some shift between his "strong" and "lean" statistics. Overall, as we saw yesterday, McCain lost ground to Obama in 31 states during June while gaining in only 6 (though it should be noted that those six states are considered by many to be swing states).
[Click Map to Enlarge]
As the week continues, there are several states to look for new polling from. Those states have not changed much since Sunday, but we can add Florida to the list. The trio of new polls from the Sunshine state pulled the average for Florida toward toss up status. It still leans to McCain, but only barely at this point. I don't want to set a precedent here, but Virginia, by virtue of several small polling victories for Obama is close to being added to the Watch List as well.
Recent Posts:
Did Obama Bounce Everywhere in June?
The Electoral College Map (6/29/08)
The National Popular Vote Plan...and Other Ways of Reforming the Electoral College
| New Polls (June 29-July 1) | |||
| State | Poll | Margin | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | Rasmussen | +15 | |
| Arizona | Rasmussen | +9 | |
| Florida | PPP | +2 | |
| Florida | Strategic Vision | +6 | |
| Florida | Rasmussen | +7 | |
| Georgia | Rasmussen | +10 | |
| Georgia | Strategic Vision | +8 | |
| Louisiana | SMOR | +16 | |
| Massachusetts | Rasmussen | +20 | |
| Massachusetts | Survey USA | +13 | |
| New York | Survey USA | +20 | |
| North Carolina | PPP | +4 | |
| Virginia | Survey USA | +2 | |
Other than Georgia, Massachusetts was the only other state to have switched categories since the weekend. The Bay state moved from being an Obama lean to being a more comfortably strong state for the Illinois senator. Obviously, this pulls Massachusetts in line with where it would be expected to be given its past voting history. Some early tighter polls have kept Massachusetts under the 10% mark, but with the inclusion of more information, those polls are now acting as outliers in the formula.
| Changes (June 29-July 1) | |||
| State | Before | After | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Georgia | McCain lean | Strong McCain | |
| Massachusetts | Obama lean | Strong Obama | |
And what about the map? Well, both Georgia and Massachusetts get darker, but the underlying electoral college breakdown remains the same. Obama leads McCain by 298 electoral votes to 240. The Obama part of the map continues to solidify. Very few states are still "leans" for him. Most states that are in shades of blue are either solidly Obama or toss ups favoring the Illinois senator. The movement out of the lean category for Obama has been in the direction of more strongly supporting Obama as opposed to becoming any more weakly associated with him. For McCain, the story is a bit different. His "toss up" numbers have been fairly static for a couple of weeks now while there has been some shift between his "strong" and "lean" statistics. Overall, as we saw yesterday, McCain lost ground to Obama in 31 states during June while gaining in only 6 (though it should be noted that those six states are considered by many to be swing states).
[Click Map to Enlarge]As the week continues, there are several states to look for new polling from. Those states have not changed much since Sunday, but we can add Florida to the list. The trio of new polls from the Sunshine state pulled the average for Florida toward toss up status. It still leans to McCain, but only barely at this point. I don't want to set a precedent here, but Virginia, by virtue of several small polling victories for Obama is close to being added to the Watch List as well.
| The Watch List* | |||
| State | Switch | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Alaska | from McCain lean | to Toss Up McCain | |
| Florida | from McCain lean | to Toss Up McCain | |
| Georgia | from Strong McCain | to McCain lean | |
| Massachusetts | from Strong Obama | to Obama lean | |
| Minnesota | from Strong Obama | to Obama lean | |
| Mississippi | from McCain lean | to Strong McCain | |
| Missouri | from Toss Up McCain | to McCain lean | |
| Nevada | from Toss Up Obama | to Toss Up McCain | |
| New Mexico | from Toss Up Obama | to Obama lean | |
| North Carolina | from McCain lean | to Toss Up McCain | |
| Ohio | from Toss Up Obama | to Toss Up McCain | |
| Texas | from McCain lean | to Strong McCain | |
| Wisconsin | from Obama lean | to Toss Up Obama | |
| *Weighted Average within a fraction of a point of changing categories. | |||
Recent Posts:
Did Obama Bounce Everywhere in June?
The Electoral College Map (6/29/08)
The National Popular Vote Plan...and Other Ways of Reforming the Electoral College
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Did Obama Bounce Everywhere in June?
There has been a lot of chatter since Barack Obama effectively won the Democratic nomination on June 3 about an Obama (or unity) bounce in the polls. I was--and still am--skeptical about the bounce based on semantics. As I've argued, a bounce--like those after a convention--implies that there is a sudden uptick in polling following a certain event that will eventually regress to the mean (the one established prior to the event occurring). However, has there been a bounce or just an increase in the margin between McCain and Obama that reflects the conditions on the ground (unpopular president and war, poor economy, etc.)? Let's look at that question with the data we now have from June.
[Click Map to Enlarge]
The map above shows how much FHQ's weighted averages have changed as a result of the polls that emerged during June. Those states in green show varying degrees of movement toward Obama while the yellow states reflect a shift toward McCain (White states are states where no polls were conducted in June. There was no case where there were new polls, but no change in the average.). From the outset, it is apparent that this map is largely green. There were 37 states where polling was done in June and of those, 31 shifted in Obama's direction. The states that moved toward Obama the most, as a result of the Illinois senator securing the Democratic nomination, are, for the most part, the states where he trailed by the largest margins prior to that point. We see big jumps in the Appalachian states where Obama lost primaries to Hillary Clinton: West Virginia, Kentucky and Tennessee. That grouping of states stretches to encompass Arkansas and Oklahoma as well. Beyond that, there are a handful of typically blue states in that have shown significant shifts toward Obama (A significant shift is defined as anything greater than a two percentage point jump in the weighted average during June. 2 points! Yeah, keep in mind that we are talking about changes in the average here. In other words, some states are more prone than others to significant shifts. On the one hand, large outliers--at least by comparison to the pre-existent data--will pull the average in their direction. But states that have had comparatively little polling are much more vulnerable to bigger shifts.): Massachusetts, Washington and Maine.
And what of McCain? Well, it isn't all bad for the Arizona senator. The momentum is against him, but he is making gains. And the places where he has made gains during the month are swing states: Nevada, Colorado, Missouri and--depending on who you talk to--Oregon and Iowa.
With the exception of Missouri, those are all Obama states in the current electoral college breakdown and comprise 28 electoral votes. That would be enough to pull McCain within 2 electoral votes of victory, but would still put him behind Obama. While Oregon and Iowa may be moving in his direction, some of the other states would potentially be easier pick ups for McCain (Think light blue states on the electoral college map.). States that are both light blue on the electoral college map and light green on the map above (So, Obama toss ups and slight Obama gains during June) are probably more likely targets for McCain than Iowa and Oregon. New Mexico and Pennsylvania fit that bill.
Of the states in white, there are only a couple that seem like they could be competitive in the fall, yet did not have any polls conducted in June. Connecticut and Montana are both leans toward Obama and McCain, respectively, but have shown signs of being in play. They are both less intensely red or blue than they have been during recent cycles. And both are cases where more polling will help to clear the picture. Also, because each has had only a few polls during all of campaign '08 (primary season, too), both are more likely than others to move significantly in one direction or the other.
Was June a bounce month for Obama, though? There's definitely an uptick in the poll numbers since he wrapped up the Democratic nomination, but as of now, there hasn't been any detectable reversion to the pre-June mean.
Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (6/29/08)
The National Popular Vote Plan...and Other Ways of Reforming the Electoral College
The Electoral College Map (6/25/08)
[Click Map to Enlarge]The map above shows how much FHQ's weighted averages have changed as a result of the polls that emerged during June. Those states in green show varying degrees of movement toward Obama while the yellow states reflect a shift toward McCain (White states are states where no polls were conducted in June. There was no case where there were new polls, but no change in the average.). From the outset, it is apparent that this map is largely green. There were 37 states where polling was done in June and of those, 31 shifted in Obama's direction. The states that moved toward Obama the most, as a result of the Illinois senator securing the Democratic nomination, are, for the most part, the states where he trailed by the largest margins prior to that point. We see big jumps in the Appalachian states where Obama lost primaries to Hillary Clinton: West Virginia, Kentucky and Tennessee. That grouping of states stretches to encompass Arkansas and Oklahoma as well. Beyond that, there are a handful of typically blue states in that have shown significant shifts toward Obama (A significant shift is defined as anything greater than a two percentage point jump in the weighted average during June. 2 points! Yeah, keep in mind that we are talking about changes in the average here. In other words, some states are more prone than others to significant shifts. On the one hand, large outliers--at least by comparison to the pre-existent data--will pull the average in their direction. But states that have had comparatively little polling are much more vulnerable to bigger shifts.): Massachusetts, Washington and Maine.
And what of McCain? Well, it isn't all bad for the Arizona senator. The momentum is against him, but he is making gains. And the places where he has made gains during the month are swing states: Nevada, Colorado, Missouri and--depending on who you talk to--Oregon and Iowa.
With the exception of Missouri, those are all Obama states in the current electoral college breakdown and comprise 28 electoral votes. That would be enough to pull McCain within 2 electoral votes of victory, but would still put him behind Obama. While Oregon and Iowa may be moving in his direction, some of the other states would potentially be easier pick ups for McCain (Think light blue states on the electoral college map.). States that are both light blue on the electoral college map and light green on the map above (So, Obama toss ups and slight Obama gains during June) are probably more likely targets for McCain than Iowa and Oregon. New Mexico and Pennsylvania fit that bill.
Of the states in white, there are only a couple that seem like they could be competitive in the fall, yet did not have any polls conducted in June. Connecticut and Montana are both leans toward Obama and McCain, respectively, but have shown signs of being in play. They are both less intensely red or blue than they have been during recent cycles. And both are cases where more polling will help to clear the picture. Also, because each has had only a few polls during all of campaign '08 (primary season, too), both are more likely than others to move significantly in one direction or the other.
Was June a bounce month for Obama, though? There's definitely an uptick in the poll numbers since he wrapped up the Democratic nomination, but as of now, there hasn't been any detectable reversion to the pre-June mean.
Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (6/29/08)
The National Popular Vote Plan...and Other Ways of Reforming the Electoral College
The Electoral College Map (6/25/08)
Saturday, June 28, 2008
The Electoral College Map (6/29/08)
With Quinnipiac's decision to stretch beyond their typical Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania coverage, there came a bevy of new polls in swing states during the latter half of the week. Beyond that though, there were several changes that shifted things on the Watch List and altered the electoral college projection as well. Since Wednesday there were eleven new polls in ten states:
What's worth noting is that, with few exceptions, these polls put the momentum in Obama's direction. Even in the McCain states, where the Illnois senator is (or has been) trailing badly, he has improved upon his standing. States like Kentucky and Tennessee, where McCain had been ahead by more than twenty points for months, have suddenly tightened. And as Nate Silver over at FiveThirtyEight.com has eloquently pointed out within the last few days, history will tell us that the position of the two major candidates in the polls will converage (or settle into position) to some degree, the closer it gets to November and the general election. Even in states like Colorado have seen Obama's lead decrease but hold steady just outside of the margin of error--but still within the range of what we here at FHQ consider to be a toss up.
And this is the case in the states where changes haven taken place since Wednesday. Obama "took the lead" in Ohio, breaking what had been a tie in our average. Still, Ohio along with Nevada, continues to be the tightest of states at the moment. Both are in Obama's column at the moment but could switch quite easily. Both Texas and Mississippi eased into the McCain lean category after being more solidly in the Arizona senator's favor of late. From the looks of things, neither will be Obama states in November, but the closer they get, the more McCain may be force to play defense in the Lone Star and Magnolia states. Meanwhile, due to the Quinnipiac polls, midwestern neighbors Minnesota and Wisconsin became more solidly blue; switching to Strong Obama and Obama lean states, respectively.
[Click Map to Enlarge]
Factoring in the changes, Obama's "strong" and "toss up" categories are bolstered by the addition of Ohio and Minnesota, while the "Strong McCain" states have been reduced with the loss of Texas and Mississippi. The Arizona senator continues to lose out on a majority of the electoral votes in the toss up states (Obama now holds nearly 70% of the electoral votes in those states.).
As far as the Watch List is concerned, Alaska joins the list (a glaring omission from the last poll that came out there), and Minnesota, Mississippi, Texas and Wisconsin all made the switches that had them on the list prior to this week. However, they continue to be on the list because a change in the opposite direction is now possible (from Obama lean to Toss Up Obama in Wisconsin, for instance, after the switch from toss up to lean this week.). These twelve states then, are the ones to watch. New polls in any of them could cause a shift in categories.
I'll be back tomorrow with a look at how the polls shift over the course of the month. In other words, we'll examine just how much our electoral college projection has captured the "Obama bounce" since he secured the nomination at the beginning of June.
Recent Posts:
The National Popular Vote Plan...and Other Ways of Reforming the Electoral College
The Electoral College Map (6/25/08)
Vice Presidents Quiz
| New Polls (June 25-28) | |||
| State | Poll | Margin | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Colorado | Quinnipiac | +2 | |
| Kentucky | Rasmussen | +16 | |
| Michigan | Quinnipiac | +6 | |
| Minnesota | Quinnipiac | +17 | |
| Mississippi | Rasmussen | +6 | |
| New Jersey | FDU | +16 | |
| Ohio | Survey USA | +2 | |
| Tennessee | Rasmussen | +15 | |
| Texas | Texas Lyceum | +5 | |
| Texas | Rasmussen | +9 | |
| Wisconsin | Quinnipiac | +13 | |
What's worth noting is that, with few exceptions, these polls put the momentum in Obama's direction. Even in the McCain states, where the Illnois senator is (or has been) trailing badly, he has improved upon his standing. States like Kentucky and Tennessee, where McCain had been ahead by more than twenty points for months, have suddenly tightened. And as Nate Silver over at FiveThirtyEight.com has eloquently pointed out within the last few days, history will tell us that the position of the two major candidates in the polls will converage (or settle into position) to some degree, the closer it gets to November and the general election. Even in states like Colorado have seen Obama's lead decrease but hold steady just outside of the margin of error--but still within the range of what we here at FHQ consider to be a toss up.
| Changes (June 25-28) | |||
| State | Before | After | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Minnesota | Obama lean | Strong Obama | |
| Mississippi | Strong McCain | McCain lean | |
| Ohio | Tied | Toss Up Obama | |
| Texas | Strong McCain | McCain lean | |
| Wisconsin | Toss Up Obama | Obama lean | |
And this is the case in the states where changes haven taken place since Wednesday. Obama "took the lead" in Ohio, breaking what had been a tie in our average. Still, Ohio along with Nevada, continues to be the tightest of states at the moment. Both are in Obama's column at the moment but could switch quite easily. Both Texas and Mississippi eased into the McCain lean category after being more solidly in the Arizona senator's favor of late. From the looks of things, neither will be Obama states in November, but the closer they get, the more McCain may be force to play defense in the Lone Star and Magnolia states. Meanwhile, due to the Quinnipiac polls, midwestern neighbors Minnesota and Wisconsin became more solidly blue; switching to Strong Obama and Obama lean states, respectively.
[Click Map to Enlarge]| The Watch List* | |||
| State | Switch | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Alaska | from McCain lean | to Toss Up McCain | |
| Georgia | from McCain lean | to Strong McCain | |
| Massachusetts | from Obama lean | to Strong Obama | |
| Minnesota | from Strong Obama | to Obama lean | |
| Mississippi | from McCain lean | to Strong McCain | |
| Missouri | from Toss Up McCain | to McCain lean | |
| Nevada | from Toss Up Obama | to Toss Up McCain | |
| New Mexico | from Toss Up Obama | to Obama lean | |
| North Carolina | from McCain lean | to Toss Up McCain | |
| Ohio | from Toss Up Obama | to Toss Up McCain | |
| Texas | from McCain lean | to Strong McCain | |
| Wisconsin | from Obama lean | to Toss Up Obama | |
| *Weighted Average within a fraction of a point of changing categories. | |||
As far as the Watch List is concerned, Alaska joins the list (a glaring omission from the last poll that came out there), and Minnesota, Mississippi, Texas and Wisconsin all made the switches that had them on the list prior to this week. However, they continue to be on the list because a change in the opposite direction is now possible (from Obama lean to Toss Up Obama in Wisconsin, for instance, after the switch from toss up to lean this week.). These twelve states then, are the ones to watch. New polls in any of them could cause a shift in categories.
I'll be back tomorrow with a look at how the polls shift over the course of the month. In other words, we'll examine just how much our electoral college projection has captured the "Obama bounce" since he secured the nomination at the beginning of June.
Recent Posts:
The National Popular Vote Plan...and Other Ways of Reforming the Electoral College
The Electoral College Map (6/25/08)
Vice Presidents Quiz
Friday, June 27, 2008
The National Popular Vote Plan...and Other Ways of Reforming the Electoral College
We here at FHQ have certainly spent some time discussing the various ways (and likelihood) of reforming the presidential nomination process. Now that the 2008 campaign has shifted into general election mode however, it may be time to look into America's other electoral problem child, the electoral college. [When it comes to reform, often, no two things are higher on the list than the frontloading of presidential primaries and the disparity between the electoral college and the overall popular vote.]
The issue? Well, unless you've been under a rock since early November 2000, you're probably aware that a candidate for president can win the most votes nationwide, but still lose the electoral college vote and in the process fail to become president. To some folks that's a problem (...and you can bet whoever it is they have a D next to their name for the time being.). But hey, out of 55 presidential elections in US history, only 3 have had a discrepancy between popular vote winner and the electoral college outcome (That's about 5% of the time.). In other words, about once every 75 years. Is it too much to ask for a little, once-in-a-lifetime, electoral excitement? Okay, I understand that some people have the "one person, one vote" hang up, but still.
The rules do matter, though. The popular vote isn't how the president is selected just as it wasn't the method in which the Democratic nomination was decided in 2008. That doesn't mean that those rules cannot be revisited and altered though. As sure as the rules governing the ways in which nominees are chosen will be examined in detail prior to 2012, the electoral college is going and will continue to be examined as long as the institution acts as the final hurdle of the presidential election system. There are differing views on how to deal with the issue ranging from completely do away with the electoral college to simply leaving well enough alone.
Let's look at these individually:
1) Abolish the electoral college. Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL), leaning on the one person, one vote argument (a powerful one, mind you), is the latest to propose amending the constitution to do away the electoral college completely. Amending the constitution solves the problem, but that isn't really the issue with this option. The means of getting to that end are what stands in the way of a change. The constitution is held sacred and altering it is not something taken lightly or easily pulled off. So while it is easy enough to say that the constitution should be amended, it is an entirely different matter to actually make the change. As good as Nelson's intentions may be (He appears to be making a play for the mantle of voting rights senator and that will certainly won't hurt his future electoral pursuits in a place like Florida.), this one probably isn't going anywhere.
2) National Popular Vote Plan: Now here's a clever way around the amendment issue. Anchor the distribution of a state's electoral votes to the national popular vote. The issue I have with this plan is similar to a point brought up by FHQ reader, Scott, in the comments the other day: the action would be shifted from battleground states to the more populous states. Instead of a red-blue-purple divide, the door could be opened to a rural-urban-suburban/exurban divide. So while the plan potentially helps to spread the attention from the typical swing states to some not so typical players, the NPV ultimately just shifts candidate attention from competitive states to populous states; the very thing the Founders were attempting to insulate the system from. But hey, candidates could raise their money and campaign in a state at the same time. This one has unintended consequences written all over it.
3) The Maine-Nebraska District Plan Nationwide (or in more than those two states): Now this idea has been bandied about in several state legislatures lately (California and North Carolina, notably). Essentially, states would allocate their electoral votes based on how each individual district voted with the two Senate seat electors being determined by the statewide outcome. This is similar to how delegates were distributed in proportional primaries in 2008. In this instance the balance of power would shift from swing states to swing districts. That could bring at least part of a state some national attention from the major party candidates. Nothing gives the Democrats more nightmares than the idea of having those 55 California electoral votes split up though. And the reverse could be true in typically Republican states. No state legislature is going to opt for this plan if the party in control of said legislature would potentially negatively affect the prospects of their national party being able to win the White House. Partisanship is the likely roadblock to this plan then.
4) The Leave it alone plan: Can you tell where I'm going with this? In the end, the most pragmatic approach is to leave well enough alone and grin and bear it when the once-in-a-lifetime, electoral college at odds with the popular vote scenario pops up. The whole thing seems like such a problem now, but when Johnson and Reagan were winning in landslides you only heard the vanquished parties calling (and quietly at that) for there to be some electoral college reform.
...and even then it wouldn't have made that much of a difference.
So is that pragmatism or the partisan gridlock that so many Americans are sick of? The comments section awaits. Feel free to weigh in.
Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (6/25/08)
Vice Presidents Quiz
Presidents and Vice Presidents from the Same State: The Misconception of the 12th Amendment
The issue? Well, unless you've been under a rock since early November 2000, you're probably aware that a candidate for president can win the most votes nationwide, but still lose the electoral college vote and in the process fail to become president. To some folks that's a problem (...and you can bet whoever it is they have a D next to their name for the time being.). But hey, out of 55 presidential elections in US history, only 3 have had a discrepancy between popular vote winner and the electoral college outcome (That's about 5% of the time.). In other words, about once every 75 years. Is it too much to ask for a little, once-in-a-lifetime, electoral excitement? Okay, I understand that some people have the "one person, one vote" hang up, but still.
The rules do matter, though. The popular vote isn't how the president is selected just as it wasn't the method in which the Democratic nomination was decided in 2008. That doesn't mean that those rules cannot be revisited and altered though. As sure as the rules governing the ways in which nominees are chosen will be examined in detail prior to 2012, the electoral college is going and will continue to be examined as long as the institution acts as the final hurdle of the presidential election system. There are differing views on how to deal with the issue ranging from completely do away with the electoral college to simply leaving well enough alone.
Let's look at these individually:
1) Abolish the electoral college. Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL), leaning on the one person, one vote argument (a powerful one, mind you), is the latest to propose amending the constitution to do away the electoral college completely. Amending the constitution solves the problem, but that isn't really the issue with this option. The means of getting to that end are what stands in the way of a change. The constitution is held sacred and altering it is not something taken lightly or easily pulled off. So while it is easy enough to say that the constitution should be amended, it is an entirely different matter to actually make the change. As good as Nelson's intentions may be (He appears to be making a play for the mantle of voting rights senator and that will certainly won't hurt his future electoral pursuits in a place like Florida.), this one probably isn't going anywhere.
2) National Popular Vote Plan: Now here's a clever way around the amendment issue. Anchor the distribution of a state's electoral votes to the national popular vote. The issue I have with this plan is similar to a point brought up by FHQ reader, Scott, in the comments the other day: the action would be shifted from battleground states to the more populous states. Instead of a red-blue-purple divide, the door could be opened to a rural-urban-suburban/exurban divide. So while the plan potentially helps to spread the attention from the typical swing states to some not so typical players, the NPV ultimately just shifts candidate attention from competitive states to populous states; the very thing the Founders were attempting to insulate the system from. But hey, candidates could raise their money and campaign in a state at the same time. This one has unintended consequences written all over it.
3) The Maine-Nebraska District Plan Nationwide (or in more than those two states): Now this idea has been bandied about in several state legislatures lately (California and North Carolina, notably). Essentially, states would allocate their electoral votes based on how each individual district voted with the two Senate seat electors being determined by the statewide outcome. This is similar to how delegates were distributed in proportional primaries in 2008. In this instance the balance of power would shift from swing states to swing districts. That could bring at least part of a state some national attention from the major party candidates. Nothing gives the Democrats more nightmares than the idea of having those 55 California electoral votes split up though. And the reverse could be true in typically Republican states. No state legislature is going to opt for this plan if the party in control of said legislature would potentially negatively affect the prospects of their national party being able to win the White House. Partisanship is the likely roadblock to this plan then.
4) The Leave it alone plan: Can you tell where I'm going with this? In the end, the most pragmatic approach is to leave well enough alone and grin and bear it when the once-in-a-lifetime, electoral college at odds with the popular vote scenario pops up. The whole thing seems like such a problem now, but when Johnson and Reagan were winning in landslides you only heard the vanquished parties calling (and quietly at that) for there to be some electoral college reform.
...and even then it wouldn't have made that much of a difference.
So is that pragmatism or the partisan gridlock that so many Americans are sick of? The comments section awaits. Feel free to weigh in.
Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (6/25/08)
Vice Presidents Quiz
Presidents and Vice Presidents from the Same State: The Misconception of the 12th Amendment
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
The Electoral College Map (6/25/08)
And the Kiss of Death Award for the week goes to the Sunday electoral college post for claiming that the frequency of state head-to-head polling had increased. The rest of the week may be jam packed with polling but the week so far has yielded very little in the way of polling. So few in fact, that I waited until today's polling surfaced before running to the virtual presses. Yeah sure, that's why you're so tardy.
From Sunday through today, there were twelve new polls from ten states. Both New Mexico and Utah were polled twice, but the new numbers did little to change the landscape in either state. Utah was never a place where Obama (or any Democrat, for that matter) was going to do well, so it isn't terribly surprising to see the presumptive Democratic nominee trailing by more than twenty points in the Beehive state. New Mexico is and will continue to be a battleground heading into the fall because of its even distribution of Democratic and Republican partisans. And even though the Land of Enchantment is as susceptible to the same indicators that are dragging Republicans nationwide down, the state does neighbor John McCain's home of Arizona. That being said, the 8 point margin in Obama's favor in the Rasmussen poll does push New Mexico on to the Watch List (below). Another similar result out of the state could bump the New Mexico into Obama lean territory.
Of the other polls, California remains firmly in the Democratic column while states like Arizona and Nebraska continue to be solidly Republican. If California and Nebraska are running to the extremes, both Indiana and Oregon are trending away from their traditional red and blue electoral roots, respectively, to the middle. Oregon had always been considered a toss up in some quarters, but in the midst of an active primary campaign had given Obama watchers what may eventually prove to be an inflated sense of security. The Beaver state was closing in on being solidly blue, but has reversed course in recent polling and looks to potentially be competitive. And while Obama got something of a bounce (that has since receded) in Oregon after its primary, the competitive primary in Indiana appears to be a bit more influential. The polling in the Hoosier continues to show a close race in a typically red state.
Finally, the new polling out of Michigan and Missouri provided each campaign with a bit of a cushion this week. Both states will undoubtedly be competitive in the fall, but both the Wolverine state and the Show-Me state inched in the direction of where they have been in recent electoral cycles. Missouri moved to the right while Michigan headed toward the left.
[Click Map to Enlarge]
And what does all this mean for the electoral college map? Nothing really. On the whole, this collection of polls did little to rewrite the current narrative of the general election campaign. Obama's 38 electoral vote victory persists through this iteration of the analysis with Ohio (no new polls) and its 20 electoral votes still tied. Where there are some shifts though, is on the Watch List.
The Michigan poll didn't have enough oomph to push the Wolverine state into the Obama lean category, but it did move the state out of the "it could switch to McCain very easily" area. The same thing could almost be said in Missouri as well. That seven point edge for McCain pushed Missouri to the brink of moving to the more comfortable McCain lean distinction. New Mexico is also a new addition to the list. The two new polls there (averaging a 5.5 point margin) brought the weighted average for the Land of Enchantment to the line between toss up favoring Obama to an Obama lean state.
Moving forward, these are ten states to keep your eye on. But other states could jump into the mix as more polls emerge.
Oh, and for those who took the NYT Vice President's quiz (whether you shared your answers or not), look no further than the first comment from Jack for the correct answers. Congrats to Jack. A lowly graduate student has little to offer (This ain't The Fix, with their fancy t-shirts.), but he's won the coveted first annual FHQ memorial, "...classic, deluxe, custom, designer, luxury, prestige, high-quality, premium, select, gourmet pocket pencil sharpener. It's our way of saying thank you...*" for participating. A doff of the hat to George Carlin on that one. I'll miss the guy.
*from Carlin's book, Napalm and Silly Putty.
Recent Posts:
Vice Presidents Quiz
Presidents and Vice Presidents from the Same State: The Misconception of the 12th Amendment
New Zealand Schoolgirls, Simpleminded Voters and Presidential Elections
| New Polls (June 22-25) | |||
| State | Poll | Margin | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Arizona | Cronkite | +10 | |
| California | Rasmussen | +28 | |
| Indiana | Survey USA | +1 | |
| Michigan | PPP | +9 | |
| Missouri | Survey USA | +7 | |
| Nebraska | Rasmussen | +16 | |
| New Mexico | Rasmussen | +8 | |
| New Mexico | Survey USA | +3 | |
| Oregon | Survey USA | +3 | |
| Pennsylvania | Rasmussen | +4 | |
| Utah | Deseret News | +28 | |
| Utah | Rasmussen | +19 | |
From Sunday through today, there were twelve new polls from ten states. Both New Mexico and Utah were polled twice, but the new numbers did little to change the landscape in either state. Utah was never a place where Obama (or any Democrat, for that matter) was going to do well, so it isn't terribly surprising to see the presumptive Democratic nominee trailing by more than twenty points in the Beehive state. New Mexico is and will continue to be a battleground heading into the fall because of its even distribution of Democratic and Republican partisans. And even though the Land of Enchantment is as susceptible to the same indicators that are dragging Republicans nationwide down, the state does neighbor John McCain's home of Arizona. That being said, the 8 point margin in Obama's favor in the Rasmussen poll does push New Mexico on to the Watch List (below). Another similar result out of the state could bump the New Mexico into Obama lean territory.
Of the other polls, California remains firmly in the Democratic column while states like Arizona and Nebraska continue to be solidly Republican. If California and Nebraska are running to the extremes, both Indiana and Oregon are trending away from their traditional red and blue electoral roots, respectively, to the middle. Oregon had always been considered a toss up in some quarters, but in the midst of an active primary campaign had given Obama watchers what may eventually prove to be an inflated sense of security. The Beaver state was closing in on being solidly blue, but has reversed course in recent polling and looks to potentially be competitive. And while Obama got something of a bounce (that has since receded) in Oregon after its primary, the competitive primary in Indiana appears to be a bit more influential. The polling in the Hoosier continues to show a close race in a typically red state.
Finally, the new polling out of Michigan and Missouri provided each campaign with a bit of a cushion this week. Both states will undoubtedly be competitive in the fall, but both the Wolverine state and the Show-Me state inched in the direction of where they have been in recent electoral cycles. Missouri moved to the right while Michigan headed toward the left.
[Click Map to Enlarge]And what does all this mean for the electoral college map? Nothing really. On the whole, this collection of polls did little to rewrite the current narrative of the general election campaign. Obama's 38 electoral vote victory persists through this iteration of the analysis with Ohio (no new polls) and its 20 electoral votes still tied. Where there are some shifts though, is on the Watch List.
| The Watch List* | |||
| State | Switch | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Georgia | from McCain lean | to Strong McCain | |
| Massachusetts | from Obama lean | to Strong Obama | |
| Mississippi | from Strong McCain | to McCain lean | |
| Missouri | from Toss Up McCain | to McCain lean | |
| Nevada | from Toss Up Obama | to Toss Up McCain | |
| New Mexico | from Toss Up Obama | to Obama lean | |
| North Carolina | from McCain lean | to Toss Up McCain | |
| Ohio | from Tied | to Toss Up Dem. or GOP | |
| Texas | from Strong McCain | to McCain lean | |
| Wisconsin | from Toss Up Obama | to Obama lean | |
| *Weighted Average within a fraction of a point of changing categories. | |||
The Michigan poll didn't have enough oomph to push the Wolverine state into the Obama lean category, but it did move the state out of the "it could switch to McCain very easily" area. The same thing could almost be said in Missouri as well. That seven point edge for McCain pushed Missouri to the brink of moving to the more comfortable McCain lean distinction. New Mexico is also a new addition to the list. The two new polls there (averaging a 5.5 point margin) brought the weighted average for the Land of Enchantment to the line between toss up favoring Obama to an Obama lean state.
Moving forward, these are ten states to keep your eye on. But other states could jump into the mix as more polls emerge.
Oh, and for those who took the NYT Vice President's quiz (whether you shared your answers or not), look no further than the first comment from Jack for the correct answers. Congrats to Jack. A lowly graduate student has little to offer (This ain't The Fix, with their fancy t-shirts.), but he's won the coveted first annual FHQ memorial, "...classic, deluxe, custom, designer, luxury, prestige, high-quality, premium, select, gourmet pocket pencil sharpener. It's our way of saying thank you...*" for participating. A doff of the hat to George Carlin on that one. I'll miss the guy.
*from Carlin's book, Napalm and Silly Putty.
Recent Posts:
Vice Presidents Quiz
Presidents and Vice Presidents from the Same State: The Misconception of the 12th Amendment
New Zealand Schoolgirls, Simpleminded Voters and Presidential Elections
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Vice Presidents Quiz
Alright FHQ readers. The Week in Review in the Sunday Times had a quiz testing your ability to match vice presidents with the presidents they served.
Via The New York Times (The online edition is gated, so I'll reproduce it here so our readers can test their knowledge.):
Take the test and share your results...if you dare. I'll post the answers tomorrow afternoon.
Recent Posts:
Presidents and Vice Presidents from the Same State: The Misconception of the 12th Amendment
New Zealand Schoolgirls, Simpleminded Voters and Presidential Elections
The Electoral College Map (6/22/08)
Via The New York Times (The online edition is gated, so I'll reproduce it here so our readers can test their knowledge.):
The office of vice president has been a springboard for some of the most important leaders in American history, including John Adams, Theodore Roosevelt, Lyndon B. Johnson and Harry S. Truman.But many of those who have filled the position have found themselves on the fast, or slow, track to obscurity — or worse. Franklin D. Roosevelt went through three vice presidents. Richard M. Nixon’s vice president was forced to resign (10 months before M. Nixon himself did). Thomas Jefferson’s was indicted for murder. Millard Fillmore and Andrew Johnson, who both made the leap from the vice presidency to the top slot, left their former jobs vacant. Below are 10 vice presidents and 10 presidents. Who goes with whom?
1. Garret A. Hobart
2. Adlai E. Stevenson
3. Henry A. Wallace
4. Hannibal Hamlin
5. Calvin Coolidge
6. Charles G. Dawes
7. William R. King
8. James S. Sherman
9. Alben W. Barkley
10. Elbridge GerryA. William H. Taft
B. Calvin Coolidge
C. Grover Cleveland
D. Abraham Lincoln
E. Harry S. Truman
F. Franklin D. Roosevelt
G. William McKinley
H. James Madison
I. Warren G. Harding
J. Franklin Pierce
Take the test and share your results...if you dare. I'll post the answers tomorrow afternoon.
Recent Posts:
Presidents and Vice Presidents from the Same State: The Misconception of the 12th Amendment
New Zealand Schoolgirls, Simpleminded Voters and Presidential Elections
The Electoral College Map (6/22/08)
Presidents and Vice Presidents from the Same State: The Misconception of the 12th Amendment
Ballot Access News has a great post up today examining in detail the 12th amendment and especially the one section of it that is often misinterpreted.
The question: Can presidential and vice presidential nominees be from the same state?
Myth: No, they can't (...with the reasoning being that representatives of one state shouldn't hold that much power.).
Fact: Well, as the good folks at BAN point out, that's not the case. Both nominees can be from the same state, but the electoral college electors from that state would be unable to cast a vote for that ticket. George W. Bush, a Texan, in 2000 chose another Texan (via Wyoming), Dick Cheney. Such a ticket would not have been a problem under the 12th amendment until it came time for the electors from the Lone Star state to vote in the electoral college. But those delegates wouldn't have mattered anyway, right Al Gore supporters? Hey wait. You mean to tell me, Al Gore could have raised this issue, had those 32 electors from Texas excluded and become president? Well, several Texas voters sued to challenge Cheney's residency during the election aftermath in 2000 thinking the same thing. So, Al Gore should have been president and we could have been spared all those claims that he was elected, just not in the electoral college? Yeah, well no. The person, be they presidential or vice presidential candidate, only technically has to be a resident of another state at the time that the electors of the electoral college meet in December to vote. So as evil as Dick Cheney seems to Democrats, at least he didn't switch his residency back to Texas the day after the Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore and really rub it in. So you have that going for you Gore fans.
[Insert sound of nearly 51 million Gore voters' hands smacking their foreheads in unison.]
Recent Posts:
New Zealand Schoolgirls, Simpleminded Voters and Presidential Elections
The Electoral College Map (6/22/08)
2008 Primary and Caucus Final Grade Sheet
The question: Can presidential and vice presidential nominees be from the same state?
Myth: No, they can't (...with the reasoning being that representatives of one state shouldn't hold that much power.).
Fact: Well, as the good folks at BAN point out, that's not the case. Both nominees can be from the same state, but the electoral college electors from that state would be unable to cast a vote for that ticket. George W. Bush, a Texan, in 2000 chose another Texan (via Wyoming), Dick Cheney. Such a ticket would not have been a problem under the 12th amendment until it came time for the electors from the Lone Star state to vote in the electoral college. But those delegates wouldn't have mattered anyway, right Al Gore supporters? Hey wait. You mean to tell me, Al Gore could have raised this issue, had those 32 electors from Texas excluded and become president? Well, several Texas voters sued to challenge Cheney's residency during the election aftermath in 2000 thinking the same thing. So, Al Gore should have been president and we could have been spared all those claims that he was elected, just not in the electoral college? Yeah, well no. The person, be they presidential or vice presidential candidate, only technically has to be a resident of another state at the time that the electors of the electoral college meet in December to vote. So as evil as Dick Cheney seems to Democrats, at least he didn't switch his residency back to Texas the day after the Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore and really rub it in. So you have that going for you Gore fans.
[Insert sound of nearly 51 million Gore voters' hands smacking their foreheads in unison.]
Recent Posts:
New Zealand Schoolgirls, Simpleminded Voters and Presidential Elections
The Electoral College Map (6/22/08)
2008 Primary and Caucus Final Grade Sheet
New Zealand Schoolgirls, Simpleminded Voters and Presidential Elections
What took voters in the US two months to figure out, New Zealand schoolgirls determined just by looking at pictures. It took over half the country's primary electorate to narrow the field of prospective presidential nominees from both major parties down to three. But that process had already been done between May and August of 2007 by college students in Australia and New Zealand and high school girls from New Zealand. And that was all based on pictures of the potential candidates that would be vying for the two major party slots in the general election. So we, here in the new world, opted to have debates and campaign in the snows of Iowa and New Hampshire and fuss over Florida and Michigan delegates for nothing? Well no, but that's the beauty of an electoral system. Those rules that were the crux of the Florida/Michigan question are the rules that govern how these nominations are decided.
I'll avoid the "is the system necessary question," but the one question that lingers is, do campaigns matter? If "snap judgments" of schoolgirls thousands of miles away can accurately predict the nominees six months in advance, are all these efforts to get out the vote and advertise all that necessary? We've had this discussion in this space before, but this frames the matter in a slightly different light. If people are going to fall back on those first impression/snap judgments, then is it all much ado about nothing?
It depends on who you ask. Campaigns matter in that they are efforts to change or maintain certain perceptions about the candidates they represent. It is not unlike the web page ranking that Google undertakes. If you have a web page (and are at all entreprenurial about it--ahem) the goal is undoubtedly to get as many people to look at it and read as possible. The window into that is often a search engine. But people aren't going to find a site if it is off the first couple of pages of search results. If a voter's mind is a search engine, a campaign is an effort to make that first page of results as beneficial to their candidate (or as negative for their opponent) as they can. Campaigns, then, are ways of altering those search results. If you typed in "Obama" in Google and got a first page of results ranging from the Obama campaign's web site to news accounts about his relationship with Jeremiah Wright to rumors of his being Muslim, the Obama campaign would have its work cut out. [In fact, that's very much what the Obama campaign is doing with its Fight the Smears web site, turning those perceptions on their head.] And it is like that in the minds of voters as well. If you were to ask the man on the street to name ten things about John McCain or Barack Obama, you could likely get a glimpse into what those internal search engine results are. And those are the ten things that any campaign is seeking to maintain or change.
Of course, those percptions (first impressions or otherwise) are influenced by partisanship, a person's level of political sophistication, and/or other information shortcuts that help make the vote choice decision an easier one to make. Those heuristics or shortcuts are the root of Samuel Popkin's The Reasoning Voter thesis and more recently have found their way into the work of Lau and Redlawsk. As the latter work shows, however, the efficient utilization of shortcuts depends in large part on how much political knowledge someone already possesses. The more politically sophisticated a person, the better able that person will be to use the shortcuts to arrive at a vote decision in line with their views. For the uninformed, the result of using those heuristics is not as representative.
Even that success/failure of shortcuts is dependent upon the choices provided. If the choice is a clear one between liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican, then the utilization of shortcuts has a greater chance of being fruitful. If you have a more moderate candidate, as John McCain is considered in some circles, the wires get crossed and the useful use of heursitics breaks down. Strategically speaking then, the Obama campaign would likely want to push McCain over to right. McCain has done some of this for the Illinois senator by being on the same side of several issues with the Bush administration. The clearer that choice, the better able folks will be to effectively use shortcuts. McCain, on the other hand, would value occupying the center-right in an effort to muddy the distinction between the two candidates. That, in turn, would affect how effectively those information shortcut would be employed.
...or we could just rely on New Zealand schoolgirls to cut out the middleman and let us know who the next president will be.
Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (6/22/08)
2008 Primary and Caucus Final Grade Sheet
Insult to Injury: Obama and His Money
I'll avoid the "is the system necessary question," but the one question that lingers is, do campaigns matter? If "snap judgments" of schoolgirls thousands of miles away can accurately predict the nominees six months in advance, are all these efforts to get out the vote and advertise all that necessary? We've had this discussion in this space before, but this frames the matter in a slightly different light. If people are going to fall back on those first impression/snap judgments, then is it all much ado about nothing?
It depends on who you ask. Campaigns matter in that they are efforts to change or maintain certain perceptions about the candidates they represent. It is not unlike the web page ranking that Google undertakes. If you have a web page (and are at all entreprenurial about it--ahem) the goal is undoubtedly to get as many people to look at it and read as possible. The window into that is often a search engine. But people aren't going to find a site if it is off the first couple of pages of search results. If a voter's mind is a search engine, a campaign is an effort to make that first page of results as beneficial to their candidate (or as negative for their opponent) as they can. Campaigns, then, are ways of altering those search results. If you typed in "Obama" in Google and got a first page of results ranging from the Obama campaign's web site to news accounts about his relationship with Jeremiah Wright to rumors of his being Muslim, the Obama campaign would have its work cut out. [In fact, that's very much what the Obama campaign is doing with its Fight the Smears web site, turning those perceptions on their head.] And it is like that in the minds of voters as well. If you were to ask the man on the street to name ten things about John McCain or Barack Obama, you could likely get a glimpse into what those internal search engine results are. And those are the ten things that any campaign is seeking to maintain or change.
Of course, those percptions (first impressions or otherwise) are influenced by partisanship, a person's level of political sophistication, and/or other information shortcuts that help make the vote choice decision an easier one to make. Those heuristics or shortcuts are the root of Samuel Popkin's The Reasoning Voter thesis and more recently have found their way into the work of Lau and Redlawsk. As the latter work shows, however, the efficient utilization of shortcuts depends in large part on how much political knowledge someone already possesses. The more politically sophisticated a person, the better able that person will be to use the shortcuts to arrive at a vote decision in line with their views. For the uninformed, the result of using those heuristics is not as representative.
Even that success/failure of shortcuts is dependent upon the choices provided. If the choice is a clear one between liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican, then the utilization of shortcuts has a greater chance of being fruitful. If you have a more moderate candidate, as John McCain is considered in some circles, the wires get crossed and the useful use of heursitics breaks down. Strategically speaking then, the Obama campaign would likely want to push McCain over to right. McCain has done some of this for the Illinois senator by being on the same side of several issues with the Bush administration. The clearer that choice, the better able folks will be to effectively use shortcuts. McCain, on the other hand, would value occupying the center-right in an effort to muddy the distinction between the two candidates. That, in turn, would affect how effectively those information shortcut would be employed.
...or we could just rely on New Zealand schoolgirls to cut out the middleman and let us know who the next president will be.
Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (6/22/08)
2008 Primary and Caucus Final Grade Sheet
Insult to Injury: Obama and His Money
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)