The Washington Post reports than Eleanor Holmes Norton’s plan to give Washington, D.C. a seat in the House of Representatives is gaining momentum. That’s good news for D.C. residents and opponents of “taxation without representation” everywhere… but the real story for political nerds is the one that Alec Oveis notes: because the plan calls for adding two new House seats (one from D.C. and one from Utah — which would have been “next in line” to gain a seat after the 2000 census), it would make the total number of electors in the Electoral College an odd number, thus eliminating the possibility of a 269-269 tie that would send a presidential election to the House (which would have happened with a shift of 18,776 votes in 3 states in 2004). Under the plan, D.C. would still get 3 electors (that’s enshrined in the Constitution), but the extra elector for Utah would mean a grand total of 539 electors, instead of 538.
Now, here’s a scenario to chew on: imagine that this plan passes, and the Electoral College is adjusted accordingly in time for the 2008 election. And then imagine that the Democrats take back the House in November, and hold onto it in 2008. And then imagine that in 2008, the Republican candidate wins by a margin of 270-269… with the new Utah elector casting the deciding vote. The GOP victory will be Eleanor Holmes Norton’s fault! If not for her plan’s passage, the election would have been 269-269, and the Democratic House would have elected the Democrat! But instead, the Republicans win, thanks to Norton’s gift to Utah! Heh.
P.S. Actually, it’s not quite as simple as “imagine that the Democrats take back the House.” In the event there is no Electoral College majority, the House votes by state delegation, not by member. So the Dems would need to take over a majority of state delegations in order to control the House voting in the event of a E.C. tie. Still, the fact remains that Norton’s plan, while not affecting the balance in the House, does effectively give the GOP a “free” presidential elector, since Utah isn’t going to vote Democratic anytime soon. :) On the other hand, it gives the Dems a +1 edge in House delegations, since D.C. is now a delegation for them, whereas Utah was Republican anyway. So, although the plan would make E.C. ties impossible, in the event of a three-way split in which nobody gets a majority, this could actually help the Dems. But now I’m officially giving this way too much thought. :)
|
Categories: Election 2008, Elections & Politics (U.S.)
|
May 12th, 2006 at 7:00:39 am
Technically, DC gets as many electors as the state with the fewest electors. Right now that’s 3. Maybe a population boom in Wyoming and a few other places might warrant a shift.
May 12th, 2006 at 8:26:13 am
Just so no one else has to go look it up …
Amendment XXIII:
…A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a state, but in no event more than the least populous state…
OK, so technically, it could stay at 3 in perpetuity, but never be more than any state. So I suppose if no state had fewer than 4, DC could theoretically have 3 or 4 …
May 12th, 2006 at 8:37:16 am
Wow, that’s a lot of IF’s.
May 12th, 2006 at 9:13:04 am
If DC adds 3 electors and Utah gets one more then how can the total number of Electoral College votes become an odd number? Last time I checked, 4 was an even number and adding an even number to another number will never change the total from even or odd. It will still be whatever the number you added the even number to. Odd numbers, of course, always toggle the total.
Even + Even = Even
Even + Odd = Odd
Odd + Even = Odd
Odd + Odd = Even
May 12th, 2006 at 9:40:35 am
If DC adds 3 electors and Utah gets one more then how can the total number of Electoral College votes become an odd number?
Actually, DC won’t be adding 3 electors..it already has 3 electors. That is why the current number of electors is 538. (100 Senators + 435 Representatives + 3 electors for D.C. = 538.) That is DC residents can currently vote for President and Vice President…but it does not have voting representatives in either the House or the Senate.
Under this proposal, there would be two new voting representatives in the House (1 from Utah + 1 from DC) raising the total to 437. But since DC already has 3 electoral votes, the fact that it now has 1 actual House representative would not increase the total number of electoral votes at all. Only the 1 extra Utah rep. would increase the number.
May 12th, 2006 at 1:10:06 pm
Brendan,
All this supposes that Norton’s plan is constitutional.
But it’s not a statehood plan, and Art. I, Sec. 2 seems pretty clear that the House is to be populated by Representatives of the states.
Greg of “Rhymes With Right” points out another potential problem, as well.
May 12th, 2006 at 1:56:12 pm
Its not quite as simple as that. Under the Constitution, the vote in the House in the event that one candidate fails to get the required majority of electoral votes is cast by the members voting as representatives of their respective states. In other words, the members of Congress from each state have to decide (by majority vote or otherwise) which candidate will get their state’s vote, each state gets one vote and the candidate with the most votes becomes President.
May 12th, 2006 at 2:21:46 pm
There seems be an epidemic of non-reading-comprehension going on here. Heh. :) KCSteve, my post explains why your math is wrong (”D.C. would still get 3 electors (that’s enshrined in the Constitution), but the extra elector for Utah would mean a grand total of 539 electors, instead of 538.”), and Doug, my P.S. explicitly addresses the point you made (”Actually, it’s not quite as simple as ‘imagine that the Democrats take back the House.’ In the event there is no Electoral College majority, the House votes by state delegation, not by member. So the Dems would need to take over a majority of state delegations in order to control the House voting in the event of a E.C. tie.”)
Not trying to be mean, just think it’s funny that we have two comments that are already totally addressed by my post… I’m easily amused, I guess.
Ephman, thanks for the link.
May 12th, 2006 at 4:38:40 pm
Brendan,
I don’t remember seeing the P.S. when I posted the comment.
Its all academic, though, because I think its fairly clear that the political football that is D.C. voting representation will be punted yet again.
May 12th, 2006 at 4:40:43 pm
The P.S. was definitely there; I actually added it at the same time I published the post. But, it doesn’t really matter either way. :)
May 12th, 2006 at 5:10:20 pm
Ahhh yesssss … the classic Brendanian Pending Script …
(grin)
May 12th, 2006 at 6:52:40 pm
“it gives the Dems a +1 edge in House delegations, since D.C. is now a delegation for them, whereas Utah was Republican anyway.”
Not that I’ve actually done the counting on this, so you may well be right, but if so, I’d be surprised . . .
Do you mean to suggest that right now, the House delegations are split 25-25 between the GOP and Dems, such that the inclusion of EHN as a voting Representative (and therefore a state delegation of 1, from DC) would make it 26-25 for the Dems, thereby giving them the +1 edge you mention?
Or did you simply mean that this plan would give them one more delegation than they currently have?
May 12th, 2006 at 7:07:29 pm
I meant the latter… sorry for the confusion.
May 12th, 2006 at 7:11:04 pm
Wikipedia to the rescue, sort of.
This map:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:109th_US_congress_house_of_reps.PNG
Suggests that Dems control 16 delegations, 3 are tied, one (Vermont) is controlled by neither party (but is Dem for counting purposes), and 30 are controlled by the GOP.
So functionally, according to this map it’s 30-17 GOP, with 3 ties. This plan would make it 30-18-3.
Of course, I said this only “sort of” answers the question because one of the states it shows as tied, Alabama, is listed on the wiki page for the 109th Congress as being 5-2 GOP. So I’m not exactly sure how they get a tie out of that, and accordingly I’m not sure how much to trust the rest of the map . . .
May 12th, 2006 at 7:20:59 pm
Ah, I think I figured it out. The map colorer doesn’t know Alabama from Mississippi. MS is split 2-2 but on the map is colored as if it’s heavily Republican. Clearly MS should be the green 50-50 state, and AL should be the deep orange strong GOP state.
Also, NJ had been 7-6 Dem but they have a vacany due to Sen. Corzine becoming Gov. Corzine and then appoint Rep. Menendez to succeed him the Senate. Thus, technically, the balance currently stands at 30 GOP, 15 Dem, Vermont, and four ties (MS, WI, MN, NJ).
Not that any of this will necessarily still be true by December 2008. :)
May 12th, 2006 at 9:57:00 pm
You know, when I came across this quiz earlier this week, I thought to myself, Who the hell knows this stuff–or cares? Then I read this post and roll my eyes. Duh.
May 13th, 2006 at 3:02:20 pm
The proposed legislation would not make the District of Columbia a State. Article XII of the Amendments to the Constitution provides that when the House must choose the President due to no Electoralvote majority for any candidate, “… the votes shall be taken by States, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice.” Therefore, the “Dems… +1 edge in House delegations” issue is rendered Moot ;> by the D.C. Delegation’s black-letter-law Exclusion from this process. / I have Spoken. :] Now whether Mr. Justice Loy is rendered Mute :> by my excathedra Construejob is a separable Question :), not to say a Questionable expectation :}.
May 13th, 2006 at 3:37:42 pm
UPDATES: WashPost yesterday ~
WHAT further legal research? :)
Washpost today:
Translation: DOA. :|
Research This, O thou 1-thru-3 L’s: I had thought (??) that somewhere along the line, in the course of the various one-person-one-vote decisions, SCOTUS had nixed At-Large U.S. Representatives in states allocated more than one House seat. Which, if true, would seem to be a Problem for the Utah piece of the Plan, since it is exactly That. / Am I wrong? ARE there currently any AL Members from multi-Seat states?
(CT had 5 Congressional Districts & 6 Congresspersons ~ one AL ~ from like the 1930’s until the election of ‘64. )
I was living in D.C. when they elected their first Nonvoting Delegate to the House. Back in Them days :) the District’s population would have warrented Two US Reps had it been a State. I guess that’s no longer the case, though the contemporary Census figure of approx. 550,000 is still pretty Fat for a single CD.