Newsmaker

I found this great article by Jay Cost of realclearpolitics.com, it’s amazing this guy is only a grad student.

October 03, 2008

Nebraska and Maine?

I noted with interest stories today discussing McCain and Obama opening up campaign offices in some far-flung places: McCain in Bangor, Maine and Obama in Omaha, Nebraska. Maine and Nebraska do not have reputations as swing states, so what the heck are these guys up to?

Part of it is to head off the possibility of something like this occurring:

What you see here is a 269-269 tie in the Electoral College. So also is this:

What happens when there is such a tie? We go to Amendment 12, which states:

The person having the greatest Number of [Electoral College] votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, 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.

That’s right, the House of Representatives - which acquitted itself so beautifully over the last week! - gets to make the choice, but with a twist. Each state gets one vote. That makes things a little dicey, for both campaigns.

For McCain, the problem is obvious: the Democrats control the Congress. Not only that, but they currently control 27 of the 50 state caucuses. The GOP controls 21 and 2 are split.

But Obama has a problem here, too. In this scenario, McCain will have won more states, which means that to win, Obama will have to convince some Democrats to vote against their states. A few unfortunate souls would probably have to vote against their own districts. In 2004 George W. Bush won 255 congressional districts to Kerry’s 180. A 269-269 tie like this implies that McCain will probably have won more districts than Obama, which would complicate matters for the Democrat.

Why is it that Maine and Nebraska are relevant to this scenario? Most states allocate electors on a winner-take-all basis. Maine and Nebraska do, too - but they also dole out electors depending upon who won which congressional districts. If McCain were to win Maine’s second district, he’d get an elector. If Obama were to win Nebraska’s third, he’d get an elector. That could make the difference.

That would be especially helpful because here’s how the Vice-President is selected.

The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice.

Again, the same tension would exist. Biden would have more Democrats. Palin would have more states.

Note that the House picks the President, the Senate picks the Veep. That means it’s possible to see a split in the executive branch - one party wins the top job, another wins the second job!

So, a spare elector from Maine or Nebraska could be quite useful.

Is it really the media’s job to give advice?* When I think back on all the things I have said about politics, all the things I thought so and so should do, I realize how poorly informed I am to make these assessments. Is the press really that much more informed. You turn on the news and some pundit will hold up a chart and say McCain must do this or Obama must do that. Who doesn’t have advice for these guys?

The more important question is who is actually qualified to give this advice? Pretend you are Obama or McCain. You need advice, whom do you turn to? I bet the answer isn’t one of those people on TV and I bet it isn’t even a journalist from the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, The Weekly Standard or what ever? I realize that I personally would be looking to a political scientist or a sociologist or a psychologist. Basically, I would want someone with actual charts, actual figures, actual correlation coefficients, and actual degrees.

For example, the data shows that campaigns only have a minimal effect on voters. Elections are decided on the margin; so I guess it’s still worth spending the near billion dollars net the two campaigns will spend. More important than campaigns to voting are changes in party affiliation, the state of the economy, and incumbent status. Furthermore, statistics show that the things that actually predict election results are voter enthusiasm and the so-called “right track wrong track” poll, not these silly national polls that get all the reporting (although if you must, the Gallup Tracking Poll is the best followed by SurveyUSA).

So I am really bored by this substanceless, numberless, and meaningless opining that I read every day. Maybe the reports should…you know….report! If Obama lays out his economic plan, publish it as a bullet point explanation. If McCain explains what he will do in Iraq, give it to me. But saying Obama needs to show he is stronger or McCain needs to act younger - Not helpful.

These reporters have minimal basis for what they are saying. RealClearPolitics blogger Jay Cost put it best when he said that the media reports in a bubble. They are political junkies, reporting for other political junkies. Gaffes only matter to political junkies, unless the gaffe really shows poor policy (McCain saying the economy is strong when Lehman Brothers fell is not a gaffe but a reflection of his inability to understand the economy). Cost points out that the race is currently tied because most of America hasn’t plugged into the race yet. We still have two months left of this, and people don’t start watching until the debates. If you are outside of the bubble, these opinions and advice and gaffes and counter-gaffes are all static.

I contend that actual reporting and actual explanations of the policy would show through and beyond the static, and prove helpful to those who haven’t tuned in.

*To avoid calls of plagiarism this article was inspired by Christopher Beam’s Slate article on the same topic but from the standpoint of how the advice is dumb, where I am made that reporters are wasting their time.