An Electoral Strategy for 2016
By Paul R.
Hollrah
DrRichSwier.com
To be elected president or vice president of the
United States requires a total of at least 270 votes
in the Electoral College. Through the
strategic spending of other people’s money,
especially among minority populations in our major
urban areas, Democrats have fashioned an electoral
map that gives them a relatively firm base of 22
blue states with a combined total of 257 of the
needed 270 electoral votes. Of the remaining
281 electoral votes, they only have to pick up 13 in
order to elect a president and a vice president.
Republicans, on the other hand, have a firm base
of 23 red states with a combined total of 191
electoral votes, leaving a total of 6 swing states…
Colorado, Florida, Iowa, North Carolina, Ohio, and
Virginia… with a combined total of 90 electoral
votes. In order for a Republican to win in
2016, and beyond, he/she must carry all 23 of the
red states, plus at least five of the six swing
states. They could afford to lose either
Colorado’s 9 electoral votes or Iowa’s 6 electoral
votes, but not all 15. To lose both Colorado
and Iowa, while carrying Florida, Ohio, North
Carolina, and Virginia would leave them with a total
of just 266 electoral votes, four short of an
electoral majority. It appears to be a nearly
insurmountable obstacle for Republicans, but is it?
With a bit of foresight and
strategic planning, Republicans could do a great
deal between now and November 2016 to mitigate the
Democrats’ electoral advantage. In a December
7, 2012 column, titled, Real Electoral College
Reform, I analyzed what would happen to the
political balance of power in the United States if
all 50 states were to adopt the Maine-Nebraska
method for allocating electoral votes.
In the Electoral College,
each of the 50 states are allotted two at-large
electoral votes, one for each of their two U.S.
senators, and one vote for each of the state’s
congressional districts. With the exception of
Maine and Nebraska, the winner of the popular vote
in each state takes all of the state’s
electoral votes. In Maine and Nebraska,
however, the candidate who wins the statewide
popular vote is allotted that state’s two at-large
electoral votes, while the remainder of the
electoral votes are allocated based on the winner of
the popular vote within each of the state’s
congressional districts.
If the Maine-Nebraska formula had been in effect
in all 50 states in 2012, and assuming that the vote
for the presidential candidates of each party would
roughly approximate the votes for the congressional
candidates of the respective parties in each
congressional district, Obama would have lost 115 of
his 332 electoral votes to Mitt Romney in the
twenty-six states, plus DC, in which he won a
majority of the popular vote. On the other
hand, in the twenty-four red states carried by
Romney-Ryan, they would have lost only 39 electoral
votes to Obama-Biden.
The end result? In 2012, instead of a 332
to 206 vote victory for Obama-Biden in the Electoral
College, the Maine-Nebraska system would have
produced a comfortable 282 to 256 vote victory for
Romney-Ryan, an outcome that would have been far
closer to expressing the will of the people than the
present winner-take-all system.
To understand this phenomenon one need only look
at the county-by-county electoral map of the United
States with the counties colored either red or blue.
It is reflective of: a) the preference for
Republican principles among a substantial majority
of the people, and b) the overwhelming size of the
vote for the Democratic “sugar daddy” in the inner
city precincts. The electoral process is
disproportionately skewed by the fact that, in the
heavily-populated inner-city precincts, the vote is
nearly always 95-110% for Democratic candidates,
while in the suburbs and the rural areas the vote is
nearly always within the 60-40 range, one party over
the other.
If it is true that “all politics is local,” as
the late House Speaker Tip O’Neill once remarked,
then to replace the current winner-take-all system
with the Maine-Nebraska electoral system would help
to bring political decision-making much closer to
the people because of the increased interest
generated in local and congressional elections.
The Maine-Nebraska electoral system would
deemphasize the key battleground states such as
Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia and
require candidates to campaign in all fifty states.
As matters now stand, presidential candidates spend
little time in states such as California, New York,
Oklahoma, and Texas because the outcome of
presidential voting in those states is almost always
a foregone conclusion. Had the Maine-Nebraska
system been in place for the 2012 General Election,
Obama would have found it necessary to defend the 15
votes that Romney could have won in California and
the 6 votes he could have won in New York, while
Romney could not have ignored the 12 electoral votes
that Obama might have captured in Texas.
Liberals and Democrats are notorious for
expressing appreciation for whatever they see as
being most “democratic.” But is there a chance
that Democrats in the bluest of blue states… such as
California, Illinois, New York, Massachusetts, and
Oregon… would agree to such a reform once they
figured out that the Maine-Nebraska system would
cause them to lose a significant number of electoral
votes to Republicans, and that the Maine-Nebraska
system would all but guarantee that no Democrat
could be elected president or vice president for
many years to come? Among liberals and
Democrats, when it come to a choice between what is
best for the country and what is best for their
party, the country will always come out on the
“short end of the stick.”
So, while we cannot expect to ever see an
electoral system in which all 50 states utilize the
Maine-Nebraska formula, is there something that can
be done now to level the playing field a bit?
The answer is yes, and it can easily be accomplished
in advance of the 2016 General Election.
Here’s what must be done:
At the present time, there are 11 states with a
total of 139 electoral votes that were carried by
Barack Obama in 2012 which now have Republican
governors. Of those 11 states, the states of
Florida, Michigan, Nevada, Ohio, and Wisconsin now
enjoy Republican majorities in both houses of their
legislatures. What this means is that, if the
governors and legislative leaders in those 5 states
understood what could be accomplished, they would
take immediate steps to repeal the winner-take-all
electoral system and adopt the Maine-Nebraska
system. With Republican majorities in both
houses of their legislatures, Democrats would be
powerless to stop them.
Even if Democrats should win the popular vote in
each of those 5 states in 2016, as they did in 2012,
the Maine-Nebraska formula would create a much
different scenario than the winner-take-all system:
Instead of winning all 29 of Florida’s electoral
votes, Democrats would win 12 and Republicans would
win 17; instead of winning all 16 of Michigan’s
electoral votes, Democrats would win 7 votes and
Republicans would win 9; instead of winning all 6 of
Nevada’s electoral votes, Democrats would win 3 and
Republicans would win 3; instead of winning all 18
of Ohio’s electoral votes, Democrats would win 6 and
Republicans would win 12; and instead of winning all
10 of Wisconsin’s electoral votes, Democrats would
win 5 and Republicans would win 5.
Applying these totals to the expected blue state
and red state totals, the Democrats’ expected
advantage would increase from 257 electoral votes to
258, while the Republican disadvantage would move
from 191 electoral votes to 237. As matters
now stand, Democrats have to take only 13 (14%) of
the 90 swing state votes while Republicans have to
take 79 (88%) in order to win the presidency.
On the other hand, if Republicans in those 5 states
were to adopt the Maine-Nebraska system in the
current legislative sessions, Democrats would have
to take 12 (28%) of the remaining 43 swing state
votes to win, while Republicans would have to take
33 (76%) of the remaining 43. Taking 76% of 43
votes is easier than taking 88% of 90 votes.
But what if many of the low-information Obama
voters in Florida, Michigan, Nevada, Ohio, and
Wisconsin decide to stay home in November 2016,
giving Republicans popular vote victories in all 5
states? After 8 years of disastrous
Obama-Biden-Clinton-style governance, it is a
distinct possibility. Under that scenario,
Republicans could put another 10 electoral votes in
their column. Democrats would have 248
electoral votes and Republicans 247 electoral votes
before the 43 electoral votes of Colorado (9), Iowa
(6), North Carolina (15), and Virginia (13) were won
or lost. Democrats would have to win 22 (51%)
of the remaining 43 swing state votes, while
Republicans would have to win 23 (53%). The
playing field would be substantially leveled.
However, in order to greatly increase their
chances of victory, Republicans should not hesitate
to target Minnesota, with 10 electoral votes; New
Hampshire, with 4 electoral votes; New Mexico, with
5 electoral votes; and Pennsylvania, with 20
electoral votes… all winner-take-all states, and all
states that Obama carried with less than 53% of the
vote in 2012. After eight years of Obama-Biden, at
least 5% of the good people in those four states
should be anxious for a change.
In the meantime, those readers who live in the
states of Florida, Michigan, Nevada, Ohio, and
Michigan might wish to place copies of this analysis
into the hands of their governors and their
legislative leaders. With seven states
utilizing the Maine-Nebraska system we may witness
the beginning of a trend as other blue states
follow suit. The question is, do Republican
leaders in Washington and in the state capitals have
the political sense to recognize the advantage they
enjoy? Given their past history, we know that
they are not always quick to act when political
advantage falls into their laps. It may be
necessary to lean on them a bit.