I see the political editor of the WSJ has discovered the "little" flaw in the EC too.
By JOHN HARWOOD
Electoral College Gets One
'No' Vote -- It's Just Not Popular
November 10, 2004; Page A4
WASHINGTON -- The past week's Republican euphoria and Democratic gloom have obscured the fact that the country dodged a major political bullet on Election Day.
The bullet wasn't a replay of the disputed 2000 elections, with provisional ballots replacing hanging chads as the grist for courtroom battle. Rather, the bullet was an Electoral College victory by a candidate who lost the popular vote decisively. That came closer to happening than postelection analysis of President Bush's victory margin of 3.5 million votes suggests.
Under the Electoral College, each state is assigned a certain number of electors, equal to the sum of its two U.S. senators and the number of its representatives in the U.S. House. In most cases, the winner of the popular vote in a state then claims all the electors.
That means that if 75,000 voters in Ohio had swung toward Sen. John Kerry, all 20 of the state's electoral votes would have gone to him, too -- even though the Republican incumbent still would have received his impressive 51% majority of the national popular vote, a margin of three percentage points over his opponent. Mr. Kerry would have won the election with a 272-266 Electoral College victory.
Before the election, neither candidate's advisers believed such a wide divergence between electoral- and popular-vote outcomes was possible. The fact that one nearly occurred shows that the country was more starkly polarized than even political operatives suspected.
Typically, the Electoral College magnifies the impact of popular-vote victories. Though Republican and Democratic strength varies significantly by region, state outcomes are similar enough that a relatively narrow edge nationally turns into a broader electoral triumph.
Thus in 1988, the 53% share of the popular vote received by George H.W. Bush, the current president's father, translated into 79% of the electoral votes against Democrat Michael Dukakis. Four years later, Bill Clinton's 43%-to-37% edge over President Bush yielded 68% in the Electoral College.
Even in closer elections, the pattern has held. John Kennedy barely beat Richard Nixon in the popular vote in 1960, and Mr. Nixon barely beat Hubert Humphrey in 1968, but both winners got 56% of the Electoral College.
In 2000, of course, the popular and electoral votes produced different outcomes for the first time in more than a century. But Democrat Al Gore's popular-vote edge was exceedingly slim -- one-half of one percentage point, roughly 500,000 votes out of 105 million cast.
What America flirted with last week was a much wider split. Though both sides anticipated the possibility of another electoral win by a popular-vote loser, Bush and Kerry advisers both calculated that it couldn't happen if the popular-vote winner's lead was greater than two percentage points, and probably not with more than a one-point margin.
In the end, it didn't happen. But it could have because the gulf between Mr. Bush's "red states" and the rest of the country was so wide. In most states, Mr. Bush either won big or lost big.
Of the 31 states Mr. Bush carried, he won 22 of them with at least 55% of the vote. That is more lopsided than in 2000, when Mr. Bush won 17 states with 55% or more.
Mr. Kerry's blue-state base was smaller, but not much diluted from Mr. Gore's 2000 showing. In winning 19 states and the District of Columbia, he drew at least 55% of the vote in eight contests, including giant California. That is just one fewer blowout than Mr. Gore won in 2000.
Those victories, combined with narrow Kerry wins in the battlegrounds of Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Minnesota and New Hampshire, brought the Massachusetts senator close to an Electoral College majority. Snatching Ohio would have made him president with wins in just 20 states -- the fewest in modern political history.
Democrats would have considered that sweet revenge for 2000. But it might not have worked out very well for Mr. Kerry, not to mention the nation.
Expanded Republican majorities in the House and Senate could have claimed Mr. Bush's popular-vote majority as their mandate -- and blocked Mr. Kerry's tax proposals, health-care plan and judicial nominations. With his 48%, Mr. Kerry would have been hard-pressed to keep Congress from interfering in his foreign policy, as well. It would have made Bill Clinton's tumultuous first term seem like a breezy afternoon of windsurfing.
Mr. Kerry's only governing strategy would have been to reach across a partisan gulf that neither party seems interested in bridging just now. Mr. Bush, with his congressional and popular-vote majorities, has no imperative to do so. But last week's results suggest this divided country could surely use it. And the results have handed both parties an issue they should be able to agree on: It is time to abolish the Electoral College.
online.wsj.com |
