Rhodes Cook: Changing the way we elect presidents would have altered the outcome many times
[Mr. Cook is a senior columnist for Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball. ]
It would not be surprising if the most important single primary in 2008 takes place in California. But don't look for it to be the presidential primary on Super-Duper Tuesday Feb. 5. Look instead to the state primary on June 3, up to now a low-profile event that could become fraught with significance if some California Republicans succeed in getting a highly controversial proposition on the ballot.
If successful, it would ensure the party's nominee 20 or so electoral votes from California next fall, even if the GOP candidate loses the state for the fifth straight election. And if the 2008 election is as close as the last two have been, that could be enough to keep the White House in Republican hands.
The political weapon of choice for the GOP is a plan that would distribute electoral votes to congressional district winners (one per district, plus two to the statewide winner of the popular vote) instead of the winner-take-all format that nearly every state currently favors. The plan was submitted as a ballot proposal to California election officials in July by a law firm that has represented the state Republican Party....
If applied nationally over the last generation, the district plan would have reversed the outcome of the 1960 election, electing Richard Nixon rather than John F. Kennedy, would have produced a 269-269 electoral vote tie between Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford in 1976, and would have consistently tightened the Electoral College outcomes in every presidential election from 1960 to the end of the 20th century--with the winning candidate losing electoral votes and the losing candidate gaining some each time.
However, in both 2000 and 2004, the district plan would have actually expanded George W. Bush's electoral vote margins--from a razor-thin five in 2000 to 38, and from 35 in 2004 to 96.
The tally of electoral votes would have looked a lot different over the last half century if the current system of winner-take-all favored by nearly all the states would have been replaced by the congressional district plan that is being championed these days by some California Republicans. Under the district plan, one electoral vote would go to the highest vote-getter in each district and two electoral votes to the winning candidate statewide. If this system had been applied in 1960, Richard Nixon would have beaten John F. Kennedy, and Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford in 1976 would have tied in the Electoral College at 269 electoral votes. In general, the winning candidate in every presidential election from 1960 through the end of the century, would have fared worse under the district plan than the current system. However, in both 2000 and 2004, George W. Bush would have won by a larger margin with the district plan....
[HNN Editor: This article includes charts that show how the vote would have gone in elections from 1960 to 2004.]
Read entire article at WSJ
It would not be surprising if the most important single primary in 2008 takes place in California. But don't look for it to be the presidential primary on Super-Duper Tuesday Feb. 5. Look instead to the state primary on June 3, up to now a low-profile event that could become fraught with significance if some California Republicans succeed in getting a highly controversial proposition on the ballot.
If successful, it would ensure the party's nominee 20 or so electoral votes from California next fall, even if the GOP candidate loses the state for the fifth straight election. And if the 2008 election is as close as the last two have been, that could be enough to keep the White House in Republican hands.
The political weapon of choice for the GOP is a plan that would distribute electoral votes to congressional district winners (one per district, plus two to the statewide winner of the popular vote) instead of the winner-take-all format that nearly every state currently favors. The plan was submitted as a ballot proposal to California election officials in July by a law firm that has represented the state Republican Party....
If applied nationally over the last generation, the district plan would have reversed the outcome of the 1960 election, electing Richard Nixon rather than John F. Kennedy, would have produced a 269-269 electoral vote tie between Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford in 1976, and would have consistently tightened the Electoral College outcomes in every presidential election from 1960 to the end of the 20th century--with the winning candidate losing electoral votes and the losing candidate gaining some each time.
However, in both 2000 and 2004, the district plan would have actually expanded George W. Bush's electoral vote margins--from a razor-thin five in 2000 to 38, and from 35 in 2004 to 96.
The tally of electoral votes would have looked a lot different over the last half century if the current system of winner-take-all favored by nearly all the states would have been replaced by the congressional district plan that is being championed these days by some California Republicans. Under the district plan, one electoral vote would go to the highest vote-getter in each district and two electoral votes to the winning candidate statewide. If this system had been applied in 1960, Richard Nixon would have beaten John F. Kennedy, and Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford in 1976 would have tied in the Electoral College at 269 electoral votes. In general, the winning candidate in every presidential election from 1960 through the end of the century, would have fared worse under the district plan than the current system. However, in both 2000 and 2004, George W. Bush would have won by a larger margin with the district plan....
[HNN Editor: This article includes charts that show how the vote would have gone in elections from 1960 to 2004.]