Rebirth and Representation

In the National Journal, Charlie Cook raises a couple of points that are worth exploring.

First, he implies that government works better if one party holds the White House and the other party holds the Congress. From a practical standpoint, it makes sense. Each side will exercise more restraint and self-discipline if it knows that the other holds the other branch of government.

If one party holds both branches of government, there is no real system of checks and balances.

It's a lesson we seem determined to learn over and over again. The process has repeated itself several times since the Vietnam era.

In the late 1960s, Lyndon Johnson and the Democratic Congress were blamed for the country's Vietnam policies. In the late 1970s, Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Congress were held responsible for the domestic and foreign problems of the day (many of which had their roots in the administrations of others). In both cases, the Democrats held Congress (but lost some seats) in the mid-term elections but lost the White House in the next presidential election.

The reverse happened in the 1990s. Bill Clinton and the Democratic Congress were blamed for missteps and overreaching on the health care issue, but Clinton held the White House while the Democrats lost Congress.

Republicans held Congress for the next 12 years, including the last six years under a Republican president.

I've seen more efficiency under a divided government. Each side gets some of what it wants sometimes. But when one party controls the White House and the Congress, things get sloppy, inefficient -- and expensive.

Fact is, both parties will spend too much if given absolute control over the government. They just overspend on different things.

Even splitting the Congress, as America did in the first half of the 1980s and the first two years of George W. Bush's administration, is better than having one party in charge of Congress and the White House.

Cook observes, "[B]oth parties have enormously strong self-destructive tendencies. ... To give one party the White House and majorities in the House and Senate is like a ticking time bomb; it's only a matter of time before it explodes and the party loses, and loses big."

But you have to reach a certain point before recovery -- and rebirth -- can begin.

"Like forests need fire to begin the regeneration process," writes Cook, "from time to time, parties need the dead wood cleared out and space made for new growth to emerge. But to rise like a phoenix, you have to get down to ashes first.

"As painful as 2006 was for the GOP, the party did not appear to hit rock bottom. A good case can be made that the Republican Party would be a stronger, better party five years from today if it reconstituted itself now."

But, if Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton defeat John McCain, that would mean the Democrats would control both Congress and the White House. Cook himself predicts that the Democrats' majority in the Senate will increase by 3-6 seats, and the Democrats' majority in the House will increase by 5-10 seats.

Is that what we want? More one-party government? Will that provide the efficiency and scrutiny that America needs from its lawmakers?

The other point that Cook brings up is the unbalanced nature of the Electoral College. I have found only a few state laws or regulations that restrict an elector's behavior. Electors usually vote unanimously (i.e., winner take all) for the candidate who won the popular vote in a given state.

In other words, if you live in a state that has 7 electoral votes and Candidate A defeats Candidate B in your state, Candidate A receives the electoral votes. It doesn't matter if Candidate A barely won or if Candidate A won by a wide margin.

Usually, that's how it works. However, state laws in Nebraska and Maine require some electors to vote in keeping with how the voters voted in their congressional districts. Technically, in those states, the electoral votes could be a little more representative -- for example, Candidate A might win the state, but Candidate B carries the Second District so Candidate A actually loses one of the electoral votes -- although it hasn't worked out that way since those laws went into effect.

But basically, under the existing procedures, it's winner-take-all in almost every state. Whether the candidate wins by one vote or 1 million votes makes no difference in the eyes of the electors.

Electors are not required to vote the way their states did. Electors are free to vote for whomever they please. But there have been only a handful of defectors in our history. So far, it's been a moot point. And the electoral votes almost always go to the candidate who wins a given state.

If your state votes for Candidate A, Candidate B will receive none of the state's electoral votes, even if Candidate B got 49.99999% of the popular vote there.

That can lead to some pretty out-of-balance outcomes. In 1984, for example, Ronald Reagan won the popular vote with 58%, but he received nearly 98% of the electoral votes.

Cook observes that Democrats "waste" a lot of their votes, rolling up large victory margins in states like California, Illinois and New York and that Republicans, who tend to win most of the smaller states, are more efficient with their votes. The only big state where Republicans "waste" a lot of votes, Cook points out, is Texas.

We saw how that scenario played out in 2000. Al Gore won the popular vote, but George W. Bush won the election by winning a lot of smaller states -- except, of course, for his narrow "victory" in Florida.

Cook says the Democrats need to win the popular vote by a percentage point or two to make sure they have enough electoral votes to win. Gore, after all, won the national popular vote, but it was close. His margin wasn't quite 1 percentage point.

Do we want every vote to count? If we do, maybe it's time to abandon the Electoral College.

It is, after all, a relic for electing the nation's leader that predates the time when citizens first started voting directly for their president.

And the winner-take-all approach disenfranchises anyone who votes for the losing side.