The LA Times is reporting that yesterday, Gov. Schwarzenegger vetoed the 'National Popular Vote' compact that would, in effect, have established a popular vote for the President instead of the electoral college. It is not clear why he has done this, and the Gov's website says nothing about it. I cannot find the veto message online yet. For whatever reason, he has waited until the last day (9/30) then buried the veto.
The interesting thing is that Angelides would not be expected to sign the bill, because (as a party hack) he thinks that the near-guarantee of 55 EV for Democrats is more valuable than the possibility of a national popular election. One reason Arnie might have vetoed the bill is that Republicans (and Dems) use CA as a money trough, since they don't have to spend much here during a presidential election. Another possibility (which the Dems may not realize) is that, in a real national campaign, Dems could massively turn out the CA vote and obliterate the current GOP advantage from small state victories.
I'm disappointed and waiting to here what the "official" reason was, also what Angelides approach is. He would do well to do the unexpected and promise to sign the bill, since that puts him in the position of a reformer vis-a-vis Arnie. But I doubt he is that bold.
Sunday, October 01, 2006
No Reform For You
Posted by The Law Talking Guy at 11:12 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Republicans get most of their support from rural areas (and states) that are over represented in the Elctoral College. That means that it is more likely that if there is to someone who loses the popular vote but wins the Electoral College, it will be a Republican.
LTG, do you REALLY KNOW that Angelides wouldn't sign it or this just an assumption on your part based solely on your bias against Angelides?
// posted by RBR
Well, three things. 1. Angelides hasn't said anything, not during the last month while the bill was pending. 2. the Democratic leadership (Senate leader Perata, for example) either voted "no" or abstained. 3. The bill was inroduced and sponsored by Tom Umberg, a 'moderate' Republican.
Btw, there are some who suggest that voter turnout is, in general, higher in red states (i.e., rural areas outvote urban ones by %), and they would be able to do a beter job in a popular vote world of getting huge redneck turnout.
Put another way, if your job is to motivate the urban minority poor or the rural southern baptists, who do you bet will be easier for GOTV efforts?
// posted by LTG
But total population is overwhelmingly urban and urban areas are overwhelmingly in the center and left. If you look at the population of those "red states" (i.e. states where Republicans win consistently by comfortable margins) and then look at the population for similarly comfortable "blue states" turnout won't matter. The population of California is more than 10 times that of Mississippi.
Even in swing states like Ohio (population 11.4 million - 3 times bigger than Mississippi), rural voters are nearly maxed out. The majority of the slack in the turn out numbers are in the urban, liberal, areas.
Only in Texas do we see a genuine "Red" state with a big population. But even here, Houston and other Texas urban areas are more purple. Check out the maps in that link. Scroll down to see population density related to support for Bush in 2004.
If Republicans AND Democrats both try to get out the vote in response to a popular vote reform, Democrats will have to get out a lower percentage of their voters to win than will the Republicans.
// posted by RBR
Quick note of correction: Tom Umberg is a Democrat
Quick note of correction #2: the Democratic leadership were not opposed to the bill--they supported it. Here's the list of the Senate vote on AB 2948, on 8/22/2006, and the Assembly vote on 8/30/2006.
Senate:
President Pro Tem Don Perata: Abstain
Majority Leader Gloria Romero: Yes
Majority Whip Carole Migden: Yes
Democratic Caucus Chair Tom Torkalson: Yes
Assembly:
Speaker Fabian Nunez: Yes
Majority Leader Dario Frommer: Yes
Speaker Pro Tempore Leland Yee: Yes
Asst. Speaker Pro Tempore Sally Lieber: Yes
Quick note of correction #3... there are some fair statistics that show voter turnout is--if anything--perhaps a tad higher in the Blue states. Here is a list (in descending order) of the states that had higher than the national average turnout in the 2004 Presidential election. For refernece, I have put in bold those states that voted for Kerry:
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Maine
New Hampshire
Alaska
Oregon
Iowa
South Dakota
Colorado
Washington
Ohio
Michigan
Missouri
Florida
Vermont
Delaware
North Dakota
Wyoming
New Jersey
Connecticut
Nebraska
Montana
Maryland
Actually, you've kind of listed the swing states more than the blue states, and yes many swing states voted for Kerry. And there should be higher turnout there. It's instructive that NY, TX, IL, and CA - the big states that are solid color - don't make the list.
// posted by LTG
Yes, LTG, you're right: many of the ones listed are swing states, and the most populous states are absent. I suppose the question is: how does this impact your argument that the Republicans would have an easier time getting the vote out in Red states than the Democrats would in Blue states?
I think the biggest effect might be the opposite: that Democrats work to bring out the urban vote in Red States, and Republicans bring out the rural vote in Blue states. Without the National Popular Vote idea, neither party has an incentive to invest much money in GOTV for these populations... so they might be great untapped resources. I believe RbR's point was that the Dems may have more accessible, easier-to-obtain untapped resources in the Red states than Republicans do in the Blue states.
Dr. Strangelove,
Thanks for those corrections, it makes much more sense to me that Democrats, especially Democrats in populous states like California, would favor this kind of reform. It makes much more sense than the "both parties are in cahoots" scenario suggested earlier.
You also nicely clarified part of my point about where the untapped votes really are. The other point is that the Electoral college counters some of the population advantage that blue states and swing states have over red states.
So the really interesting thing is what would that list of high turn out states look like if you didn't just look at percentage of voters who turn out - which really doesn't matter - but look at turnout weighted by population and partisan leanings.
For example, in 2004 Alaska (the highest turnout red state) had a TOTAL of less than 300,000 votes cast. In contrast, Maryland - a relatively small blue state not at the top of the turnout list - had a total number of votes in excess of 2.3 million! California had about 12 million votes cast!
If turnout in Alaska were 100% it wouldn't matter. If turnout in California jumped to 75% they'd change the world under a strict popular vote reform system.
// posted by Raised By Republicans
So is the concern really about small vs large states, rather than GOP vs Dem.? In which case why would Arnie veto it?
Is the GOP that knee-jerk that they would baulk at this sort of reform to keep short-term power? Surely this would effect the politicians the least, given that they'll bend anyway the wind blows.
// posted by Numbat o Love
Here's how I'd pose the question: when turnout matters on a national scale, not just in a few swing states, is it easier to turn out the marginal Republican or the marginal Democrat? On the one hand, Republicans have a higher voting percentage anyway, so Dems have greater untapped potential. On the other hand, the reason Dems vote in lower numbers is because voting is correlated with socioeconomic status. Also, Republicans have more money. This is not a stereotype. For example, when I was in college trying to register Democrats, the Democratic party was offering $1 per voter. Republicans offered $3.
// posted by LTG
Both LTG and Numbat are missing an important point I think. The status quo, the electoral college, disproportionately benefits rural states with small populations. Those are the same states where the GOP - especially it's conservative wing - gets most of it's support. Switching to a popular vote system would reduce that advantage.
Percentage of turnout in rural areas is not what we should look at because they are far less than half of the total population. This is an urban vs rural issue and since the GOP is the rural party, they oppose the reform at the national level.
Numbat's confusion about Schwarzenegger's opoosition is understandable. But it makes sense if you think about his loyalty to the party he belongs to. He can't back their core ideology and still get elected (at least he pretends not to back their core ideology for a few months before general elections). But he can act strategically on their behalf when issues of institutional choice come up.
That's why he is a big backer of redistricting reform in California - where the status quo benefits Democrats. But an opponent of electoral system reform at the national level where the status quo benefits conservative Republicans.
// posted by RBR
We've had a lot of discussions about the electoral college and the rural bias. I agree this is true, but it can be overstated. What happens is that each state gets an extra 2 votes in the EC, just for being a state, plus DC. this means that 102 votes (of 538) are awarded on a non-population basis. But, of course, about 1/3 of those go to blue states, negating the imbalance. So, in reality, the EV bonus for rural red states is no more than 30 or so EV, about 8% of the total.
It hasn't mattered much. Keep in mind that, since 1888, there has been only one time the EC did not reflect the popular vote in outcome. Also, whenever a president is winning the popular vote by at least 5% or so, there is usually an EC sweep (Clinton 1992 and 1996, Bush 1988, Reagan 1980, 1984).
My other point is this: don't underestimate the fact that Republicans in big blue states (NY, CA, etc.) have low turnout, which would change in a popular vote system. As RBR observes, Mississippi is small, so the number of Discouraged Democrats is small. The number of Resigned Republicans in CA and NY is much larger.
A truly national vote is not as predictable as it might seem. Yes, it should favor the Democrats, BUT there's an organizational hitch. For Democrats to turn out Discouraged Democrats in red states, they need to field a couple dozen small red state operations. All Republicans need to do is media-saturate CA and NY to boost their numbers there.
// posted by LTG
I guess my point -- of course not clearly stated -- was that the major parties as a whole shouldn't care less whether the system is EC or popular. Members from the rural states might, and I would have thought that could be counter-balanced by the members from populous states, who might see the benefit of freeing up Republicans in California for example. As a whole why should a party care? They will simply adjust to whatever is popular at that time. I am cognisant that the Dem's used to be the conservative and then changed (my level of understanding is about covered by that statement).
Maybe my question is more about how the party mechanisms work. Why would the Republican party machinery oppose such a change, apart from, of course, it being change? Do small states hold that much power within the party itself?
// posted by Numbat o Love
The potential Republican vote in California can be seen in how many Republicans are in state wide offices in California - 1 and he's a wierd one to put it mildly. Republicans do not do better in local and state wide elections than they do in the general. This suggests that the Democratic majorities in the blue states are genuine and not based on disproportionately depressed turnout among Republican voters.
Another clue that LTG may be incorrect about his assumption that both parties oppose the reform is that so many of the Democratic leaders in California supported it and none opposed it. This strategic action implies that they at least expect to benefit from it.
// posted by Raised By Republicans
As we all remember bitterly, the Republicans reaped the benefit of the Electoral College system (as opposed to the popular vote) in 2000. It was only after 2000 that the issue of changing to the popular vote became so polarized. Many who felt Gore "really" won the election wanted to move to a national popular vote system. Thus, those who supported Bush felt obliged to defend the Electoral College. So it does not surprise me that Dems are carrying the standard for Electoral reform while the GOP opposes it; the call for national popular vote and other electoral reforms is in part a proxy fight over the moral legitimacy of the 2000 Presidential election result. I do not think this gut reaction by the membership of both parties should be dismissed because it is not strictly rational.
Post a Comment