Moving that Overton window: hey, let’s gerrymander the state boundaries to game the Electoral College
That’s not exactly what this article at FiveThirtyEight actually says, at least not up-front. The author, Ella Koeze, is just speculating what it would be like to have different state boundaries than now, rather than abolishing the Electoral College entirely to change the way presidential elections go:
Our current state borders are fairly arbitrary. Throughout American history, people have been proposing new states, but most don’t appear on the map today, either because they once existed but were later redrawn, or because they simply never caught on. But what if some of these would-be states were around today? Would moving those state borders, without changing any votes, change our political reality?
The short answer is probably not, at least in 2016: Of the 13 maps we tested, none of them flipped the outcome of the last presidential election. These new maps did shift the Electoral College vote margin by as much as 38 votes, but since President Trump won by more than 70 votes, it wasn’t enough to swing the election to Clinton.
But it was enough to help, and it certainly could change things in the direction of a Democrat win in some future close election. So the effect would be as I stated it in the title of this post.
And here’s another point the author makes:
While none of those fake maps would have produced a different outcome in 2016, there is a relatively easy way to rewrite the past — if we free ourselves from the constraints of history and instead do a little strategic shuffling. By reallocating two protuberant state parts (the Upper Peninsula of Michigan and the Florida Panhandle) to their neighbors (Wisconsin and Alabama, respectively), we can flip the outcome of 2016 with a single click.
As I read this, it is clear to me that what is happening has several dimensions. The first is the idea—not equivocally stated but nevertheless implicit—that the Electoral College is in need of change. The second is that a goal of such change could or would or should have been to make Hillary Clinton president. The third is that there is nothing sacred about not only the Electoral College but also the state boundaries. They are mere tradition, perhaps ripe for change as political needs warrant. Let’s “free ourselves from the constraints of history,” shall we?
These points also have to do with getting people to consider not just the changes detailed in the article, but whatever other changes might be possible. There’s no attempt to discuss the reasons we might have an Electoral College or in particular why it might still be desirable, or why we might have these particular state boundaries (the latter described as “arbitrary)—what purpose the whole edifice serves, and what would be gained or lost by changing. The thrust of the piece is how such changes would work in the political sense in terms of who would win a presidential election.
The article ends this way [emphasis mine]:
This is all fun, but the states won’t be shifting their borders anytime soon. For better or worse, we will return to the same old red-and-blue map on the next election night, and we’ll simply be watching to see if any states change color. But even if the Electoral College isn’t going anywhere, it’s still worth remembering that nothing about our political map is inevitable.
“Worth speculating,” indeed.
The phrase that captures the democrat efforts to overturn 2016 election results:
“By hook, or by crook”
Of course, one does not need to change state boundaries. All one needs to do is to import a new electorate whom you can bribe with “free stuff” to put ensure power.
There have been Electoral College cranks in the poli-sci world for a long time. That’s not what this is. THIS is just “Orange Man Bad.”
An actual political science professor posted something recently about how the GOP had won two of the last five Presidential elections with a minority of the vote and that proves the EC is terrible. But of course, that’s not really accurate. Bill Clinton NEVER got a majority of the vote. So it’s really four of the last seven Presidential elections that were won by someone who got less than 50%.
But even though it actually strengthened his argument, he strenuously objected to lumping in Clinton’s wins with Bush the Younger and Trump. He even called Clinton’s wins by plurality a “simple majority,” as if that somehow meant something.
And what’s even funnier is that this guy works at a podunk school in a one-horse town in a state that’s got less than half as many people at the Chicago metro area, so his popular vote advocacy only serves to disenfranchise himself. But of course, he doesn’t identify with his immediate community or even his state. This guy likes to think of himself as a peer of the folks who really do live and work in the big cities without recognizing that if he really WAS a peer of those folks, he’d be living in the big city and teaching at a big university instead of being a nobody living nowhere.
Mike
“Our current state borders are fairly arbitrary.”
This is historically ignorant in the extreme. Or, moronic — pick ’em. Certainly no way to premise any serious writing.
This begs the question: what won’t the American Left do to rewrite the 2016 election results?
We saw demands for recounts. We saw serious threats against state Electors to vote the wrong way. We saw unending demands for impeachment, beginning before the inauguration. We hear unending complaints about winning the popular vote. We haven’t yet seen anyone screaming that the occupant of the White House isn’t the real Donald Trump, but I suppose that’s just a matter of time.
It occurs to me, though, that the very thought of gerrymandering state boundaries could only come from someone who sees no difference between one state and another. I wonder if the author has ever visited the states in question… and asked how the people there would feel about it? “You don’t live in Florida anymore; the government has decided that you’re in Alabama now.” I don’t think that would go well.
I also suspect that such suggestions come from someone who doesn’t really understand how the Electoral College works, and why it’s important. (As you said, Neo, if they understood that, presumably they’d at least have given the explanation lip service.)
“it’s still worth remembering that nothing about our political map is inevitable.” Ella Koeze
Translation: Never forget that nothing in our Constitution is permanent, including the outdated notion that there is such a thing as “inalienable rights” (which can’t exist because a non-existent entity cannot ‘grant’ anything). Thus, in reality there are no ‘rights’ human or otherwise, just privileges that the State grants and rescinds at its whim.
“If you want a vision of the future (they are committed to manifesting), imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.” George Orwell
Just another leftist wet dream about doing away with the republic and making the USA a democracy. That way they can usher in their tyranny of the majority.
Daniel Schwartz,
Not only don’t you live in Florida anymore, but your taxes will change, regulations for businesses will change, your school curricula will be different, and in-state tuition won’t work for your kids.
These idiots don’t understand anything.
I could go for making New York City, Chicago and the western rim of California into states so the rest of us did not have to put up with them.
Upstate New York, down state Illinois and eastern California would be ecstatic.
@expat:These idiots don’t understand anything.
They understand perfectly; it is a deliberate and well-thought out strategy. They will tell you out one side of their mouths that people who live in Florida Panhandle should have their votes count for Alabama, and out of the other side that illegal aliens in Florida Panhandle deserve in-state tuition at Florida universities.
The Inner Party seeks power. The Inner Party produces whatever propaganda it takes to enough of the Outer Party to vote the right way.
Remember when Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were opposed to gay marriage? Not one leftist of my acquaintance believed that they actually were. And they were not. They were just lying. The Inner Party knew.
As a near life-long reader of alternate history fiction, one of the distinct subgenres of science fiction, all I can do is laugh at that mook. And this is one of those real laughs, the ones you get when you amuse Thor, not one of those fake Rocket Racoon laughs.
So, let me tell you where his craptastic notion utterly breaks down. Deseret. In the map of his that I saw, he had Deseret becoming a state in 1849. Deseret was settled, and named, by Mormons. And I’m talking the old school fundamentalist, polygamist Mormons. Utah today, even without the fundamentalists in control of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints, is one of the most socially conservative states in the country.
Now, imagine what today’s Southern California and Hollyweird would be like if they were established and grew under the same social/political paradigms as Utah. Yes, in the mook’s map, Southern California is part of Deseret. So is Las Vegas. Sure, Las Vegas would be pretty much the same, because the Mormons realized that having a designated outlet for debauchery was useful for so many reasons. But SoCal? It would NOT be anywhere like what it is today.
First Rule of Alternate History: You don’t get to go back a century and half and change something big, and have everything the same today except for the one special change you want to see.
(Note: This doesn’t even consider the question of what Deseret does in the Civil War. The Mormons went west to establish their OWN country, not to establish a state in the Union….. )
Article Four, Section Three of the Constitution provides for the admission of new states, most of which came from the western territories as they were settled. However, it is still possible to change the borders of existing states, as long as consent for this is given by the relevant state legislatures and the U.S. Congress.
Theoretically, large states can be split into two, or small states can combine to form one larger state, or parts of one state can join another one, as long as there is agreement with those legislatures and the Congress. But this is unlikely to happen in the near future, since people like what they are used to, and those state boundaries were all formed for definite historical reasons.
However, the really big question is what might happen in the next 20-30 years, when the U.S. population hits 400-450 million people, most of whom may live in large urban cities, with two-thirds of that population non-white, and with all such recent rapid growth coming from immigration (of all types).
Under such conditions, politics will be a lot more contentious than is the case now, and the societal background may not be as ideal as one could hope. We can expect demands in the near future to change state boundaries, all in the name of greater fairness and greater equality, and for more perfect representation.
add that and this together and hundreds of more we dont know..
No Wonder Google Execs Cried When Hillary Lost – They Funded Crowdstrike – The ‘Experts’ Behind the Russian Hackers Story
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/07/no-wonder-google-execs-cried-when-hillary-lost-they-funded-crowdstrike-the-experts-behind-the-russian-hackers-story/
Oh gimme a break! HRC was an awful candidate and had the terrible habit of insulting the voters, which is a technique the MSM continues to do. 2016 was my shift away from the Democrat Party and it was a 180 degree shift. When you make Maxine Waters and AOC plus three the face of the party, you have already lost. I have to admit my favourite candidate is a Democrat, but the MSM is so cruel to her you only see her on Fox. The Democratic Party is a joke these days.
That said; If you got rid of California, Trump won the popular vote. And with California’s harvesting votes skills, I do not trust their numbers. I think the State that has the most arbitrary lines and should be broken up is California. One state could be the northern coast, another the southern coast, two more with the northern interior and southern interior. You would have 4 governors with 4 state legislators. It would probably be run a lot better and it would not be a one party state. The NY Times are wrong and so obvious.
Texas entered the union with the provision that it could be broken up into multiple states.
That particular gerrymander was debated back in 2009 when Nate Silver was wondering how it would have affected Obama’s election and subsequent ones as well (looking to benefit the Democrats, but without much success).
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/messing-with-texas/
The division has never happened, of course (although many people are good with splitting off the People’s Republic of Austin as a city-state), and probably won’t, because no one is willing to give up the Alamo to another “state” — although that may change if demographics are altered enough.
Every state should award its electoral votes by the Nebraska and Maine model. Suddenly every state matters and no Constitutional amendment needed.
There is not now, or has there ever been, a single governor who would surrender one whit of power, or q foot of land, for such a cause.