America has elected a president 56 times.
Even if the outcomes of some elections have been similar, even if some of the outcomes have appeared to be identical, each election has been unique.
Certainly, the early elections were conducted entirely differently from the ones we have today.
The most telling difference, of course, has been the fact that ordinary eligible voters were given the authority to choose the presidential electors in every state in 1824; up to that time, state lawmakers still made the decision in many states.
In three elections — 1876, 1888 and 2000 — the candidate who received the most electoral votes did not receive the most popular votes. Such outcomes have, inevitably, led to heated debates over the future of the Electoral College, with its detractors claiming that it isn't representative of the wishes of the people.
Over the years, there have been many arguments for and against the continued existence of the Electoral College — but there's only been one real attempt to abolish it.
The 91st Congress, which convened immediately after the contentious 1968 campaign, proposed an amendment to the Constitution that would have eliminated the Electoral College and replaced it with a system in which a presidential ticket would be chosen by popular vote.
To put things into historical context, this amendment was proposed after Richard Nixon had emerged as the winner in a brutal three-way race against Democrat Hubert Humphrey and independent George Wallace.
Nationally, Nixon won the popular vote over Humphrey by less than 1%, but both candidates fell far short of 50%. Wallace received more than 13% of the popular vote and carried five Southern states.
In the Electoral College, Nixon received nearly 56% of the vote.
Due to the discrepancy between the winner's share of the popular vote (roughly 43%) and the electoral vote in the most recent national election, the amendment included a provision stating that a candidate had to receive at least 40% of the popular vote to win without being forced into a national runoff with the runner-up.
The amendment sailed through the House Judiciary Committee and was overwhelmingly approved by the full body of the House in September 1969.
Shortly thereafter, as the Senate Judiciary Committee prepared to consider whether to recommend the measure to the state legislatures, Nixon gave his endorsement to it, and the New York Times reported that it had the support of nearly enough state legislatures to be ratified.
But the amendment died on the floor of the Senate in September 1970, when a filibuster forced the majority leader to move to set the amendment aside so the Senate could take up other business. The amendment was never brought up again.
In truth, though, the Electoral College never really has been "representative" — although I presume that the real complaint hasn't been that it's not "representative" but that it isn't "proportional."
I'll give you a more extreme example of what I mean than the 1968 election.
In 1984, Ronald Reagan was re-elected president with nearly 59% of the popular vote. By winning 49 of the 50 states — and receiving all of the electors from those states — Reagan ended up with nearly 98% of the electoral vote.
If the electoral vote had been in proportion to the popular vote, Reagan would have received 316 electoral votes instead of 525.
But the historic assumption is that, if a presidential candidate wins the popular vote in a state, whatever the margin of victory may be, he receives all of that state's electoral votes. Usually, that's how it works out. There have been a handful of "faithless electors" in American history but very few.
Clearly, in states where the vote is close — the best example of that this year is Missouri, which remains too close to call five days after the election — those voters on the losing side tend to feel — somewhat justifiably — disenfranchised.
However ...
Not all states employ the winner-take-all method. A couple of states — Maine and Nebraska — have passed state laws that follow what is called the "Congressional District Method."
At this point, it may be helpful to reflect on how electoral votes are allocated. They are allocated on the basis of a state's representation in Congress. A state receives one electoral vote for each House district it has — and congressional districts are based on the population figures from the most recent census.
Each state also receives an electoral vote for each senator it has. Every state has two senators.
In Texas, where I live, we have 32 House districts. That means we have 34 electoral votes (32 + 2).
Simply stated, in Maine and Nebraska, the candidate who wins the statewide vote receives the two electoral votes that a state receives for its delegation in the Senate. The remaining electoral votes are awarded based on the outcomes in each congressional district.
Therefore, it has been theoretically possible since those laws were passed for a candidate to win the state but not win all of the electoral votes.
Maine has had this law on the books since 1972. Nebraska has had it on the books since 1992. But neither state has ever had to divide its electoral vote because one of its districts voted differently from the rest of the state's population.
Until now.
Traditionally, Nebraska votes Republican. In fact, Nebraska has supported the Republican nominee in every election except one since 1940. On Tuesday, it did so again.
But the difference was that the Second Congressional District voted for Barack Obama.Words cannot express how significant it is that one of Nebraska's congressional districts supported a Democrat for president.
Obama's margin over McCain in the Second District was a mere 1,260 votes. But you have to put it into historical perspective to get an idea of how remarkable it is for a Democrat to win even a single electoral vote in Nebraska.
Four years ago, the Second voted to re-elect George W. Bush, 60% to 38%. In 2000, the district supported Bush over Al Gore, 57% to 39%. In 1996, it supported Bob Dole over President Clinton, 52% to 38%. In 1992, it voted for George H.W. Bush over Clinton, 47% to 32% (with Ross Perot receiving 20%).
Not only has the district joined the rest of the state in supporting Republican nominees on a regular basis. It also has been represented in the House by Republicans for all but 10 of the last 58 years.
Granted, the Second is where Nebraska's largest city — Omaha — is located, and large, metropolitan areas tended to support the Democratic ticket. But the Omaha World Herald endorsed Republican John McCain. So did the Lincoln Journal Star, the Grand Island Independent and the McCook Daily Gazette.
I am unaware of any newspaper endorsements that Obama received in Nebraska.
But the endorsement that counted in the Second District was the one the voters gave him.
No comments:
Post a Comment