I am aware there is no pact in force now.
The way I read that thread above is, AM says there is a pact that some states are trying to set up which may come into force in the future. Then mbh chimes in to suggest that Democrats will welch on the pact once it is in force if it is in their interest.
The pact needs the full 270 EC votes, because even in a balanced situation, take for example Nixon v. McGovern in 1972 - the popular vote was 47M to 29M but McGovern only won 17 EC votes - the popular vote vs EC can be incredibly skewed. You can construct a scenario where one candidate takes all the votes in some states and 49% in others to end up with just under 270 votes… A candidate might win all the smaller states by 51% and lose heavily in the bigger states big-time (urban-rural split?) and still win. (To do the math - just order the states by population and win 51% of the vote from lowest on up until you have 270 EC votes.)
I think the pact would help all the big non-swing states (not just the blue ones). Presidential candidates currently focus on the issues of the swing states, and pretty much ignore any special issues of non-swing states. This affects policy, not just elections. In this sense Texas is in the same boat as California, even though Texas is red and California is blue.
Here’s an example of how the electoral college system has affected California. In 2001 Enron took advantage of recent deregulation of energy markets in California, causing a crisis that led to rolling blackouts and sharply increased electricity prices. Gray Davis, a Democrat who was governor of California at the time, begged the Bush administration to do something about it. Bush could have ordered FERC (the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) to step in and stabilize things, but he declined.
Bush might have done something if the California vote in the next presidential election had meant anything. If the president had been selected by a simple majority of the popular vote, he’d have stood to lose a lot in 2004. As it was, Bush knew he would lose California in 2004, so letting Enron screw California didn’t hurt him politically.
Now, I’m not familiar with special issues in Texas, but I’m sure they exist. At the very least, a president has influence over where money gets spent. Texas has the second-highest population of any state in the U.S., yet presidential candidates (and presidents, by extension) are free to ignore the state (except for fund-raising, of course).
This is why it puzzles me that states like Texas and Georgia haven’t gotten behind the pact. They could increase their influence in presidential elections. Yes, the electoral college system gave the Republicans a minority president in 2000, but it could happen the other way around (i.e. the next minority president could be a Democrat). I don’t see how the electoral college gives the Republicans an advantage.
As it stands now, the electoral college actually has a built in democratic advantage. There are about 240 electoral votes that are basically safe for the Democrat, but a much smaller amount that are safe for the republican. This is because of the winner takes all system that 48 states have adopted (and the 2 that haven’t almost never actually split their votes and have very few to begin with).
It would be a good idea for the bigger Red states to adopt the pact, if they want to have a chance of blunting the advantage Democrats currently have.
Seriously, Nixon took ALL the states except Massachusets. Some of the bigger states - CA, NY, TX, are fixed for one candidate or the other. Many of the midwest and southern states are fixed for Republicans - but a candidate can change that in a heartbeat. Obama sewed up urban areas with a heavy black vote, for some reason; Hispanics voted for him in record numbers this time because of his policy on immigration contrasted with the Republicans. Jimmy Carter and Bill CLinton had a special appeal to southern voters. And so on…
The “Swing states” were up in the air, no guarantee for anyone:
Ohio - 18
Florida - 29
Virginia - 13
Pennsylvania - 20
Colorado -9
North Carolina - 15
Wisconsin - 10
Iowa - 6
New Hampshire - 4
Yet Obama got 8 of the 9 (not NC, so 109 votes) and only 332 electoral votes.
I don’t think you can say 240 votes were guaranteed; this suggests the campaigns and pollsters took maybe 332-109=221 D for granted, and for Romney, 206-NC=191R.
I suspect the problem is not so much the “guaranteed” votes, as that the extreme side of the Republicans have assumed everyone wants their philosophy; by emphasizing a message that did not appeal to latino, black, urban, less religious, and also scoring negatively with those who feel the state should have some compassion for the poor and disadvantaged, you are going to lose.
I heard Clinton, in a frank discussion about elections over a year ago, take the somewhat opposite tack - that Republicans had a guaranteed 45% vote, the Democrats 40%, and that 15% undecided was up for grabs. (Of course, either side could discourage the turn-out of that guaranteed group too if they did not properly appeal to them.)
The biggest danger of a popular vote is a simple one - what if it’s so close a country-wide recount is called for. Nowadays, the states cheap out and dont count (or don’t count carefully) the extra votes - mail in, provisional, etc. Once the popular vote has decided the state, unless there’s a chance that extra voting would change the results, why bother counting it. If O’Bomney wins by, say, 500,000 votes and there are still 700,000 votes to be counted; yes, if they were all for the other guy it could change the result, but a quick sampling would show it’s at worst 60-40; that means at best, 60%x700,000=420,000 which is not enough. So why spend money counting them? Why spend millions vetting hundreds of thousands of provisional ballots to see if they are genuine voters? Just throw them away.
OTOH, if every vote matters, then you will get lawsuits up the wazoo in every jurisdiction if it comes down to a few hundred thousand votes nation wide.
I think the biggest priority is to fix the voting and counting system, then fix how the final tally procedure play out.
@md2000 - There are states now totalling up to 242 electoral votes that have voted for the Democrat in the past 6 presidential elections. That’s what I mean by “safe”. Obviously, in a wave election, some of these are going to go to the republican. But in very close elections, for the forseeable future, and with the way demographics are going, they are a virtual lock for the democrat.
May sound good on paper, but curiously, this strategy tends to favor Republicans, even when it should not. In 2000 and '04, Bush would have won by a larger margin, and in '08, Obama’s margin would have been smaller. There are two reasons I can see for this. In red states, there are fewer blue districts, due to gerrymandering, but blue states tend to have more balance. In addition, the small states have just one district, so they cannot split their vote: most of the small states are red. There are more red EVs to be had in CA and NY than there are blue EVs to be had in TX or AL.
Using this scheme, I calculated 12 more EVs for Bush in 2000, the year he came in 2nd in the popular vote; of course, if it had been in place at the time, the campaign strategies for both candidates would certainly have been different, so the calculation is doubly academic.