The essay below was submitted to the Taos News for the reader submission feature "My Turn". Though it was accepted (automatically), it was neither published nor acknowledged by any staff member. I reduced my essay to fit their 750-word limit. There is more I would say, but I'll limit myself to the following:
The bad news is that the state legislative session--very brief in New Mexico, with the legislators unpaid!--is over. The good news is that I was really aiming at getting the discussion started this year, while the pointer is at the 2024 election.
This violates slightly my vow to avoid discussing national electoral politics in 2023, but only slightly: I am not advocating this kind of legislation for most states, as either their Congressional districts are overly gerrymandered, or they have so many Electoral Votes that giving up all-or-nothing would be self-defeating for now. As for New Mexico, I could prove that this reform would hurt neither party and would be an improvement in our democracy, if only a local and somewhat symbolic one.
New Mexico Should Go the Maine-Nebraska Route
My suggestion for the current New Mexico legislature session is a nonpartisan one: Our legislature can change the way our state’s Electoral Votes (EV) are counted in Presidential elections, so that each Congressional district’s vote goes to the candidate who receives the most people’s votes there. This is what Maine and Nebraska do today, and those two states have derived benefits for doing so. New Mexico could do the same.
The Constitutionally-mandated means of electing our President is a clumsy kluge that works erratically, sometimes not at all. Among many proposed remedies to make our Presidential outcomes fairer, the leading one right now bypasses the College’s role and awards the Presidency to the national popular vote winner. This fits the idea of democratic election, and New Mexico has approved it, but it has the defect that it is stalled along party lines short of its goal, seemingly permanently.
The worst distortion of popular will in our Electoral College system comes from states giving all their EV to the statewide winner regardless of the margin, the so-called winner-take-all rule. Except that it isn’t a rule. There’s zero mention in the Constitution. To change that practice is down to Congress, or barring that, the state legislatures (and governors to sign it).
Maine and Nebraska have done so, each for their own reasons. These two relatively small states in population each have one Congressional district that’s sufficiently competitive to draw national attention in the Presidential race, where every Electoral Vote is precious. In 2020, the Democratic ticket visited that district of Nebraska, and President Trump went to northern Maine to campaign. The result in the election was a narrow win in those districts going against the statewide result.
This is where New Mexico comes in. Many states have their Congressional boundaries as a result of “gerrymandering”, where districts are redrawn, distorting House representation away from the statewide balance; these days, that’s done by reducing competitive House seats.
New Mexico, in its 2020 redistricting exercise, went a different direction. Although New Mexico’s legislature did some engineering of our districts, they created more competitive ones, rather than non-competitive ones. This is somewhat true of our own 3rd Congressional District, but especially so with the 2nd District, which proved in 2022 to be one of the closest in the nation. I guarantee that if our Second Congressional District were able to exercise its Presidential vote independently of the statewide votes, it would rise in importance, becoming a special area of focus for both parties, bringing attention and ultimately real benefit to those residing in that region of the state.
Time for me to be real: As a registered Democrat, why would I advocate for something that might cost my party an Electoral Vote in 2024?
Three reasons: 1) Benefit to the Second is bound to help the state of New Mexico, overall. 2) It would set an example for the whole nation, rising above partisanship to do something positive about our Electoral College problems. 3) It is, objectively, a more accurate way to map popular votes to Electoral Votes than the current winner-take-all approach.
This is not just some trick on Republicans’ behalf, either: the Democrats would gain two district-level EV to a greater level of certainty than they have now. That’s the thing about this reform: at least in the case of New Mexico, its effect is fair and non-partisan.
So, should New Mexico’s reform give impetus for Congress to legislate a nationwide reform (no amendment required)? Well, there are at least a couple of problems.
First is the notion 96% of states share, that winner-take-all gives them more influence. This is like the joke about the town in Minnesota where everyone is above average. Both the largest states, taken for granted by the dominant party in them, and the smallest states, with their over-representation but still minor contributions, are deluded in this way. A few states truly have disproportionate influence on the outcome through winner-take-all: They are the middle-sized swing states, currently Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Arizona. A reform that reduces the tension and unbearable deluge of phone calls and TV ads in those might be surprisingly popular there.
Besides gerrymandering, there could be a concern that, because it would make third-party EV likely again, the reform could potentially lead to recourse to the dreaded decision by the House. Any Congressional legislation for district-based Electoral Votes must include improvements there.
In the meantime, New Mexico should make its change and reap the benefits, starting in 2024
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment