Electoral College pitfalls

[BootmanLA]

We know (from the historical record) that the primary driving force behind the creation of the Electoral College was to get southern states on board with approving the new constitution. They'd already been handed a major victory when seats in the US House were apportioned based on the formula "free people + 3/5 of slaves" (which meant, effectively, white people plus 3/5 of black people). Each southerner's vote, therefore, counted for 160% of that of each northerner's vote when choosing members of the House.

The essence of that arrangement was carried over to the Electoral College, which, contrary to the popular imagination, was not created because the founders "feared democracy". As a matter of fact, a substantial portion of the constitutional convention wanted direct election of the president (albeit by those eligible to vote, ie white men who owned property, only). But just as they didn't want a Congress dominated by free states who might look askance about the institution of slavery, the slave states were adamant that the president not be chosen by a group that, even they could see, would soon be numerically dominated by residents of non-slaveholding states.

The EC was in fact a late-in-the-game compromise, where the need to keep selection out of the hands of Congress met the practicality of the two senators, 3/5 slave apportionment compromise. Thus was born the idea of electors equal to the number of senators and representatives, apportioned the same way. There was no grand design suggesting it was an ideal arrangement (and in fact no other nation on earth has adopted it, despite many, many of the other aspects of our constitution being reflected in governments around the world).

It's not a slur to call it the White Supremacy Compromise.

What's interesting is that even though slavery has officially been over for more than 150 years, there's still a tinge of white supremacy left in the  EC, though not in the most obvious place.

We've heard a lot about how the GOP desperately wants to increase its appeal to minorities - especially Black people, Asians, and Hispanics. And in fact, they have made some inroads in that respect across all three groups, though it's arguable going from 4% to 7% support among Blacks, for instance, really counts as progress. But what's interesting is that when you look at the distribution of ethno-racial groups across the country, those efforts by the GOP are almost entirely wasted.

For instance, looking at Asians: roughly 75% of Asian-Americans live in California, New York, Texas, New Jersey, Hawaii, Illinois, Washington, Florida, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. The GOP could double its appeal among Asians and still come nowhere near winning California, New York, New Jersey, Hawaii, Illinois or Washington. They largely have Texas and Florida in the bag for now, so any gains there are basically wasted in terms of the electoral college. At most, they might get a little closer to flipping Virginia and Pennsylvania. Maybe.

Likewise, for Blacks: they're overwhelmingly concentrated in Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, South and North Carolina, and Virginia. The GOP already has a lock on the first five of those, so any gains are wasted. They might get a little boost in NC or Virginia (again). Maybe.

But then the same policies that appeal to Black people in Virginia aren't likely to be the same ones that appeal to Asians. So appeal to one, repel the other, and vice versa - or come across as so cynical trying for both that neither one really moves your direction.

Hispanics present a similar problem. There's no way California's flipping red, even with major inroads among Hispanics there. Conversely, gains in Texas and Florida are wasted. It's unlikely the GOP can take New Mexico, although it could shore them up in Arizona a bit.

And this isn't just a Republican thing. The Democrats could boost their share of the Black vote in Mississippi to 99% and still not win the state. They could lose a quarter of their Black voters in California and still win the state in a cakewalk. And so on.

Add to all of this that none of the three groups is necessarily monolithic in its interests. So it's very easy for outreach to come across as pandering.

Which is why the trio of swing states - Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania - remain so important. They're also whiter than the rest of the country: Wisconsin (86%), Michigan (75%), Pennsylvania (75%), compared with 58% of the US being non-Hispanic White. As the states (in addition to Nevada) that flipped D to R in 2016 and back again in 2020, they're most "up for grabs". And that means, for better or worse, campaigning to white people about their issues. 

Which makes white voters, once again, more valuable than others.

Of course, getting rid of the archaic Electoral College would upend that immediately. But as for now, it's doing what it was intended to do all along.

[Poz50something]

3 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

For instance, looking at Asians: roughly 75% of Asian-Americans live in California, New York, Texas, New Jersey, Hawaii, Illinois, Washington, Florida, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. The GOP could double its appeal among Asians and still come nowhere near winning California, New York, New Jersey, Hawaii, Illinois or Washington. They largely have Texas and Florida in the bag for now, so any gains there are basically wasted in terms of the electoral college. At most, they might get a little closer to flipping Virginia and Pennsylvania. Maybe.

Likewise, for Blacks: they're overwhelmingly concentrated in Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, South and North Carolina, and Virginia. The GOP already has a l

[think before following links] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/harris-trump-poll-asian-american-voters-rcna172255 Most Asian American voters intend to vote Democratic, partly in response to the presence of a woman running for the White House. 

[think before following links] https://apiavote.org/harris-leads-trump-by-38-points-among-asian-american-voters-increasing-bidens-lead-by-23-points-among-fastest-growing-group-of-voters/ 

Among Asian-Americans, there is a 38 point lead in favour of Harris. The rhetoric of Trump, such as describing COVID-19 as the China virus, or 'kung flu' probably alienated many Asian voters, especially Chinese-Americans, the largest-growing sector of eligible Asian-American voters. 

[think before following links] https://aapidata.com/featured/asian-americans-are-flocking-to-kamala-harris-why/ 

Well over a third of Asian American voters (38%) say that Harris’ identity as a woman is “extremely important” or “very important” to them, with significantly smaller proportions indicating the same about her racial identities as Indian/South Asian (25%) and as an African American (24%) or about her age (25%). The findings were not statistically different among Indian American voters, who arguably share even closer ethnic affinity to Harris.