The Republicans' Electoral Map Problem

[democrattotheend]

Interesting article. I wish the author had addressed how 2000 happened if we have such an electoral advantage. I did read recently that some pundits in the runup to 2000 thought Gore might win the electoral college but lose the popular vote.

Regardless of who it advantages, I still want to repeal the Electoral College. It's unfair and it causes half the country to be completely ignored and arguably disadvantaged in policy as a result of tendencies by presidents and legislators who might want to run for president to favor swing states.

Amid all of the agita and hand-wringing about the campaign Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney ran, the reality is that the former Massachusetts governor was operating on an in­cred­ibly narrow electoral map that made his only path to victory something close to a total sweep of the most closely contested states. That problem isn’t unique to Romney and, along with the party’s demographic disadvantages, is the biggest issue facing Republicans as the party tries to regroup for 2016, 2020 and beyond.

Let’s start with an examination of the electoral math.

In the past six presidential elections, including 2012, the Democratic nominee has averaged 327 electoral votes while the Republican nominee has averaged just 210. (A candidate needs 270, a simple majority of the total of 538 electoral votes, to be elected.)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-gops-electoral-map-problem/2012/11/11/35ec162e-2c20-11e2-89d4-040c9330702a_story.html

[WCGreen]

1. A link to the article would help...

[democrattotheend]

3. Done, sorry

Meant to include it and then forgot.

[Dubster]

2. Spam deleted by gkhouston (MIR Team)

[JHB]

4. From November 1, 2000:

Not just pundits speculating.

So what if Gore wins such crucial battleground states as Florida, Michigan and Pennsylvania and thus captures the magic 270 electoral votes while Bush wins the overall nationwide popular vote?

"The one thing we don't do is roll over," says a Bush aide. "We fight." How? The core of the emerging Bush strategy assumes a popular uprising, stoked by the Bushies themselves, of course.

In league with the campaign - which is preparing talking points about the Electoral College's essential unfairness - a massive talk-radio operation would be encouraged. "We'd have ads, too," says a Bush aide, "and I think you can count on the media to fuel the thing big-time. Even papers that supported Gore might turn against him because the will of the people will have been thwarted."

Local business leaders will be urged to lobby their customers, the clergy will be asked to speak up for the popular will and Team Bush will enlist as many Democrats as possible to scream as loud as they can. "You think 'Democrats for Democracy' would be a catchy term for them?" asks a Bush adviser.

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2000-11-01/news/18145743_1_electoral-votes-popular-vote-bush-aide

[democrattotheend]

5. Damn, why didn't we do anything like that?

It's amazing to me that there wasn't more outrage in 2000, except among Democratic activists. If Obama had lost the popular vote he'd have been treated as if he had no legitimacy. Oh wait, they did that to him anyway after 2008, even though he won in a landslide.

[JHB]

6. That's the bitterest pill in that article:

Last paragraph:

And what would happen if the "what if" scenario came out the other way? "Then we'd be doing the same thing Bush is apparently getting ready for," says a Gore campaign official. "They're just further along in their contingency thinking than we are. But we wouldn't lie down without a fight, either."

Not exactly the way they played it IRL.