Virginia legislature pushing EC by CD: Does this even help the GOP in 2016?

[Mr. Morden]

http://www.wdbj7.com/news/wdbj7-lawmakers-move-to-change-va-electoral-vote-system-20130123,0,3958411.story?track=rss&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Republicans are pushing this, but does it even help them in 2016?  Colorado was the "tipping point state" in 2012 (just barely smaller win there for Obama than in PA).  Virginia was about 1.5% stronger for Romney than CO or PA.  Aren't most of the close election scenarios for 2016, in which this change in VA would actually tip the election the other way, cases in which it helps the Democratic candidate rather than the Republican candidate?

EDIT: What would be hilarious is if the legislature passes this and McDonnell signs the bill, and then McDonnell wins the 2016 GOP nomination and loses the general election because of a split in Virginia's electoral votes.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I'd imagine it hurting the GOP, which is why McDonnell won't let it through.

[RogueBeaver]

I'd imagine it hurting the GOP, which is why McDonnell won't let it through.

This, plus being a generally stupid idea overall.

[Likely Voter]

It would be clearly a GOP benefit. Due to gerrymandering and the wording of the proposal (giving the 2 bonus votes to winner of most CDs), they would turn VA from 13 swing EVs into at least 8 safe EVs. GOP/ROmney/PACs spent about $80M just on TV in VA in 2012, so it is a big money saver. Given a choice, I think they would prefer to spend close to nothing and still be guaranteed to get the lionshare of EVs (regardless of PV).

If you apply the same rules to the other GOP controlled Obama states (MI, WI, PA, OH, FL) you end up with the GOP entering the election with over 250 safe or strong lean EVs. The Dems would need to win all the 2012 swing states (IA, NV, CO, NH and NC) or find new 'red states' to pick off in order to win. The GOP could lose the national PV by 4% and still win.

[DrScholl]

Unless it's a very close divide and they've implemented this power grab in other states, it won't help them at all. And if they did pull off a scheme like this and won more electoral votes, despite losing the popular by 3-4%, there would be protests in the street.

[Mister Mets]

Politically, it helps the Republicans if states with Republican Governors and legislators take this up. That includes Michigan, Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin, Virginia and Pennsylvania.

Then Republicans start with 215 electoral votes from the states Romney won. Democrats have 213 electoral votes from the remaining states Obama won.

The House delegations for those six states include 9 Republicans from Michigan, 8 Republicans from Virginia, 12 Republicans from Ohio, 17 Republicans from Florida, 13 Republicans from Pennsylvania, and 5 Republicans from Wisconsin.

If Republicans win the Romney states and every district in which a Republican congressman won in 2012, they'll have 279 electoral votes. This occurs even if Democrats win a majority of the vote in all six states.

So a Republican presidential contender could lose nine districts which currently have Republican represenative, and still win the next presidential election, without a majority of the vote in Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin or Virginia.

I do think it would be a bad idea, as 2016 looks like a strong Republican year, and this would result in less credibility for the party.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The method of allocating the statewide EVs strikes me as something that wouldn't pass constitutional muster.

[Benj]

The method of allocating the statewide EVs strikes me as something that wouldn't pass constitutional muster.

Doubtful. Under the Constitution, the legislature could refuse to hold an election entirely and appoint the electors if it wanted. Therefore, it must have power to allocate electors in any manner it might choose. There's nothing in the Constitution that requires the President or Presidential electors to be elected by popular vote.

[Devils30]

I'm not so sure it would survive a constitutional challenge. Just because the state's can allocate electoral votes as they choose doesn't mean they can violate other provisions of the constitution such as equal protection (as this plan does).
I'd also challenge the Congressional District method altogether since states have fixed borders while districts do not. EP should mean that everyone's vote for the same office occurs in the same way and the ME/NE method should be unconstitutional as well.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I'm not so sure it would survive a constitutional challenge. Just because the state's can allocate electoral votes as they choose doesn't mean they can violate other provisions of the constitution such as equal protection (as this plan does).
I'd also challenge the Congressional District method altogether since states have fixed borders while districts do not. EP should mean that everyone's vote for the same office occurs in the same way and the ME/NE method should be unconstitutional as well.

Yeah, a state for example couldn't assign EVs based on who won more counties. This also creates some VRA issues, though that's a bit more complicated.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

The method of allocating the statewide EVs strikes me as something that wouldn't pass constitutional muster.

Doubtful. Under the Constitution, the legislature could refuse to hold an election entirely and appoint the electors if it wanted. Therefore, it must have power to allocate electors in any manner it might choose. There's nothing in the Constitution that requires the President or Presidential electors to be elected by popular vote.

This is true, unfortunately.  But supporting something like this is probably political suicide, anyway.

[Devils30]

Again, I'm not worried at all that Virginia does this because the votes aren't there. Ohio won't either because its more R than the national average and would only help Dems in a close 2000 style election. MI probably won't either because it would get overturned in a referendum and Snyder has enough issues already. WI senate may not have the votes for it. PA is the biggest concern to me but the state senate majority is fairly thin there too and the Governor is up in 2014 as well.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Interestingly enough in 2007 a Democrat in the North Carolina legislature proposed this, but withdrew it after the request of then DNC chairman Howard Dean. This turned out to be the smart thing to do in 2008 considering Obama won NC anyway, and turned out to be VERY smart with the current districts in NC.

In the case of Pennsylvania consider that the current five D-held seats are utterly unwinnable for the Republicans on any level, and about 10 of the R seats are for Democrats presidentially. So at most there are about 5 EVs in play. That's a great diminishing of clout from 19EVs and means a lot less advertising money in presidential elections. In Maine and Nebraska it increased the state's electoral clout which was why it was done.

[mattyman]

It wont make it pass the state senate surely. 40 Dem against, 39 Repub for, 1 abstain is the most likely scenario? Best case scenario is 40/40 split but Bill Bolling would cast deciding vote, most likely against.

[Devils30]

It's unconstitutional because although in 1787 it would be allowed, the 14th amendment EPC is clearly violated. Yes, states can allocate electoral votes in the manner they choose but I dont think this means they can allocate them in violation of other constitutional provisions as well.

[Lief 🗽]

If this happens, the national popular vote compact will be passed in 270 EV worth of states within a year.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Regardless of whether it was proposed by Dems in states under their control, or GOP state legislators now, these plans to substantially change the electoral process to benefit one party is tantamount to wiping our asses with the Constitution.  These are the tactics of dictators and tyrants.

Gerrymandering Congressional districts is bad enough, but to subject the Presidential election to sophisticated geographical renderings designed to diminish competition is a final straw.

If this happens, the national popular vote compact will be passed in 270 EV worth of states within a year.

Personally I support the Electoral College, and I see these sorts of political tricks as urgent threats to its existence.  I strongly oppose NPV, but wouldn't mind seeing it used as a threat to stop VA and other states from implementing their dirty schemes.

[Mr. Morden]

It would be clearly a GOP benefit. Due to gerrymandering and the wording of the proposal (giving the 2 bonus votes to winner of most CDs), they would turn VA from 13 swing EVs into at least 8 safe EVs.

Yes, it locks in place about 8 EVs for the Republicans, but it means that in every election, VA would give 8-10 EVs to the GOP, and 3-5 EVs for the Dems.  On the surface, that might sound like it's favoring the GOP, but at least for 2016, I think it's more likely than not that VA still votes at least a bit more Republican than the tipping point state.  Thus, more scenarios in which the GOP wins VA in a close election, but still has to give up ~4 EVs to the Dems that it wouldn't otherwise have to.

OTOH, ~9 is bigger than ~4, so even with fewer scenarios in which the Dems are sacrificing EVs, those scenarios might be more likely to swing the election.  On balance, I think you're right that it would be slightly more likely to be a net benefit to the GOP, but one would have to work through all the 50/50 election scenarios and rank the likelihood of each outcome to work it out.

On yet another hand, though, if McDonnell is the nominee, then he'll get at least some home state boost in VA, and so splitting the EVs like this would more likely hurt him than help him.  So if this actually does pass and it comes to his desk, it's in his personal political interest to veto it.  (Assuming he intends to run in 2016, and thinks he has a realistic chance of winning.)

[Mr. Morden]

Here's a 2016 scenario (stolen from the Christie vs. Clinton thread with some modifications by me so ignore the shadings) in which the GOP would win under the normal WTA EC rules, but allocating the VA EVs by CD would throw the race to the Dems (because it would gain them about 3 or 4 EVs that they'd otherwise lose if it was WTA in VA):

And here's the reverse case.  The Dems would win under normal WTA rules, but if you split the VA EVs so they go to the winner of each CD, then the GOP wins the election: