Sponsors

Why is John McCain Mr. Grump? Due to the Changing Electoral College Dynamic Email Print

In the 1984 presidential campaign, despite the temporary boost of the Geraldine Ferraro first female nominee effect, saw incumbent Ronald Reagan begin his ultimately successful re-election effort by visiting the northeast, the traditional Democratic Party's bread basket stronghold.

The reason why the Republican candidate's strategists chose to commence the campaign there was due to the changed electoral college dynamics beginning with the sixties and the passage of historic civil rights legislation that put the south into the reliable camp of the Republican Party.

By the time that Bill Clinton was running in 1992 Republicans were so inured to the idea that the electoral college arithmetic favored them that they were utterly shocked when what an increasing number of mainstream media pundits were citing as continuing political inevitability that he was ever reviled to the point of abject disgust, commencing with an effort to remove him from office.

If the Arthur Schlesingers Senior and Junior along with Kevin Phillips are correct, American politics runs in cycles.  This theory is becoming increasingly popular this election cycle as it appears that the cycle of the Republican right is coming to a crushing halt.

When the campaign began heating up following the primaries many of us were looking to see what would happen in certain states that are critical if Ruy Teixeira and other Democratic political analysts are correct that an emerging cycle is about to occur.

This cycle would supplant a Republican period that saw Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan elected twice and George W. Bush, well, hanging on, albeit by the most dubious and highly questionable means.

The axiom many of us established was based on where the candidates stood at the advent of October, the critical final five weeks of the campaign.  In order for the McCain campaign to feel a measure of confidence and comfort it was essential to have certain states comfortably in tow, along with a few in the Midwest and western regions as well.

Certain mainstream analysts noted that last week the McCain campaign was taking out ads in Indiana.  This is a state that Bush won comfortably by better than 20 points in 2004.  National polling currently has this state, one that a Democrat won the last time with Lyndon Johnson in the 1964 landslide over Barry Goldwater, in the toss-up category.

As for the reliable south that Republicans never needed to bother defending, using that valuable advantage to concentrate on target states necessary for Democrats to stand a chance of winning, both North Carolina and Virginia are being vigorously contested by the Obama-Biden team and Republicans must necessarily generate careful focus there.

If the south is no longer in the category written off to Republicans and has two fiercely contested states being decided in 2008, the McCain team has seen a once sturdy and reliable western tide erupt.

California during Ronald Reagan's tenure extending to George Bush the Elder had gone Republican in each presidential election since Lyndon Johnson's 1964 landslide.  

Since Bill Clinton's first triumph in 1992 the Republicans have lost each time, with Karl Rove being panned by political experts by being mouse-trapped by the Gore campaign into competing for a race decided by that time, which many believe may have ultimately cost Bush the Younger Michigan.

So Republicans reconciled themselves that, even if  California constituted a current problem and a thorny one since it is the nation's most populous state and hence the biggest prize in the electoral college pot, they were after all at the top of the hill in the region as a whole, save those "lefties" in Oregon and Washington, that the Limbaugh-O'Reilly crowd sought to depict as aberrations that had not seen the neocon light.  

Now along come Colorado and neighboring New Mexico, in addition to Nevada.  These states have seen significant population increases.  Those increases have been strategic, cutting in the Democrats' favor as educated high tech, Internet savvy voters who see intelligent application of government as a plus rather than the curse that neocons see it flexing increasing muscle.

The same phenomenon that has made western states that the Republicans once saw as reliable, or reasonably so, occurred in North Carolina and Virginia.  These changes have been particularly pronounced in Charlotte, North Carolina and in the suburbs of Northern Virginia adjacent to Washington, D.C.  

If you doubt the Northern Virginia phenomenon as a vote translation mechanism then talk to George Allen, who was on what he thought was a muscle flexing exercise against Jim Webb, only to realize that he was ultimately an ex-senator.

When the foregoing phenomena is examined the Sarah Palin choice can be concluded as one where the Rove neocon regulars hit the panic button and chose the familiar, going back to what worked in the past and, if present trend continues, will not work in the changing face of U.S. electoral politics.        


KEYWORDS: , ,

Sign up for a Complimentary Member Account... Join the community! It's fast. And it'll allow you to take advantage of all this site's great features!

< Paul Newman: Progressive Humanitarian | 9 Horrific Days that Shook the U.S.A.'s Credit Card Economy! >
 Display:
The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. In 2004 two-thirds of the visits and money were focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money went to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people were merely spectators to the presidential election.  Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.

Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections.

In the past six decades, there have been six presidential elections in which a shift of a relatively small number of votes in one or two states would have elected (and, of course, in 2000, did elect) a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Every vote would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.

The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes--that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 21 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes -- 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

See http://www.NationalPopularV ote.com  

susan

by mvymvy on 09/29/2008 06:12:44 PM EST

on an important topic.  I also would like to see a popular vote for president.  The big obstacle has been and I believe will continue to be the smaller states that believe they would lose attention and public focus in a popular vote system.  In any event the good news is that some states that used to be reliably Republican are undergoing change through increasing population consisting of people with fresher ideas than the "relic of the past" philosophy that dominated the thinking of the majorities of so many of these important electoral college states.

Once again, thanks for the contribution and the important points raised.

by Bob Kendall on 09/30/2008 02:58:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]
in that I rather than Bob Kendall responded to the comment on this article, which was in reference to an article that I, and not Mr. Kendall, wrote for the site.

by Bill Hare on 09/30/2008 03:03:08 PM EST

[ Parent ]
 Display: