A Stitch in Haste

Captain Ed has an interesting quote from former Wyoming Senator Alan Simpson on the Electoral College, upon which I have blogged previously here (see also my post on the Colorado proposal and the problems with popular voting generally):

In response to questions regarding the Electoral College, Simpson strongly defended the current structure and explained that any attempt to eliminate it would never pass muster with enough states. Too many smaller states would lose their impact on presidential contests, and as Simpson said, no one would ever see a campaign outside of New York, Chicago, and California.

My response: Is the alternative -- that you never see a campaign inside New York, Chicago or California -- any better?

Also, Simpson is clearly referring to a constitutional move to reform the Electoral College. But moving to the District Method, which I strongly advocate, would not require a constitutional amendment -- two states, Maine and Nebraska, have already adopted it.

My own home state of New York is a perfect example. New York State is "blue" only because New York City is so overwhelmingly Democratic (about 80-90%). Almost all the upstate counties are Republican. In 2000, under the District Method, four of New York's 33 electoral votes would have gone to Bush without him having even campaigned in the state; California's votes would have been split 19-35. Using the District Method would definitely have brought the candidates to those states to campaign (I think Simpson's pronouncement that the candidates would appear only in major population centers is totally overblown).

State-by-state adoption of the District Method would not require a constitutional amendment and avoids the logistical (and litigious) nightmares that could easily ensue from a purely popular vote. It would have prevented Florida 2000 without the litigation nightmares that purely popular voting would invite. It's simply the optimal system.