|
|
ONLINE FEATURES
Book Reviews
BW Video
Columnists
Interactive Gallery
Newsletters
Past Covers
Philanthropy
Podcasts
Special Reports
BLOGS
The Auto Beat
Byte of the Apple
Europe Insight
Eye on Asia
Getting In
Investing Insights
The New Entrepreneur
NEXT: Innovation Tools & Trends
On Media
Technology at Work
The Tech Beat
Traveler's Check
TECHNOLOGY
Product Reviews
Tech Stats
Hands On
AUTOS
Home Page
Auto Reviews
Car Care & Safety
INNOVATION
& DESIGN Home Page Architecture Brand Equity Auto Design Game Room SMALLBIZ Smart Answers Success Stories Today's Tip FINANCE Investing: Europe Annual Reports Bloomberg BW50 SCOREBOARDS Hot Growth Companies: 2008 Mutual Funds Info Tech 100 B-SCHOOLS Undergrad Programs Rankings & Profiles | |
DECEMBER 22, 2003
Edited by Mike McNamee Will Election History Repeat Itself In 2004? When George W. Bush captured the Presidency in 2000 despite winning a half-million fewer votes than Democrat Al Gore, many chalked it up to a once-a-century hiccup in the Electoral College. But in the midst of the first sustained period of partisan parity since the late-19th century, historians are beginning to wonder whether one by-product of the 50-50 Nation could be a jarring stretch of electoral instability -- and more contests in which the popular-vote winner loses the White House. "In a very closely divided country, the Electoral College doesn't serve candidates or the public particularly well," says Kay J. Maxwell, president of the League of Women Voters. That was the case from 1876 to 1892, when five tight elections yielded two minority-vote Presidents: Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876 and Benjamin Harrison in 1888. The era of close decisions didn't end until William McKinley's 1896 landslide over populist Democrat William Jennings Bryan ushered in three decades of GOP dominance. Absent a realigning election, political scientists think history could well repeat itself. Here's why: ROCKY MOUNTAIN LOCK. Republicans can count on a daunting electoral vote tally in the sparsely populated Great Plains and Mountain West states. The electoral college -- in which a state's vote is set by the size of its House delegation, plus two -- gives small states more clout than their population warrants. To the Founding Fathers, this protected little guys from then-behemoths like Pennsylvania and Virginia. Centuries later, the party that wins rural America -- now the GOP -- still has a built-in edge. BIG BATTLEGROUNDS. At the same time, states award all their electoral college votes to their top vote-getter, no matter how close the contest is. Narrow wins in Florida and Ohio gave Bush those states' 46 electors, putting him over the top. But in '04, losses in industrial battlegrounds -- Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Missouri (BW -- Dec. 15) -- could cost Bush the White House even if he wins the popular vote. MIND THE GAPS. The parties may be equal nationwide, but most states aren't even close to being competitive. In 2000, Democratic dominance of the two coasts gave Gore lopsided tallies in New York and California and the popular-vote majority. In 2004, Bush could again be a minority President if he runs against a socially liberal Northeasterner -- say, ex-Governor Howard Dean. Conversely, Bush could roll up huge Southern margins but lose the Electoral College with narrow defeats in the heartland. "As long as you've got highly regionalized voting, there's a possibility" of minority-vote Presidents, says Trinity College political scientist Diana Evans. NADERING NABOBS. In a 50-50 Nation, third-party candidates wield outsize power. Although Green Party spoiler Ralph Nader got just 2.7% of the 2000 popular vote, he tipped Florida and New Hampshire -- and thus the election -- to Bush. Dems beware: Nader is signaling he may have another go in 2004. With all these danger signs flashing, will Congress ever revamp the archaic electoral system? Not likely. Small-state senators won't swallow a constitutional amendment mandating direct election. And GOP lawmakers are loath to consider any proposal that would taint Bush's 2000 win -- at least, until some Republican falls victim to the electoral college curse. By Richard S. Dunham Campaign Reform's Good News/Bad News Who won, who lost in the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision on Dec. 10 upholding almost all of the McCain-Feingold campaign reform act of 2002? The scorecard: WINNERS: HOWARD DEAN. The Democratic front-runner has mastered the small-dollar donor system that the law promotes with its ban on unregulated giving from deep-pocketed contributors. STEVE ROSENTHAL. The former labor pol adapted quickly to McCain-Feingold's ban on parties accepting large soft-money donations. His shadow group, America Coming Together, could supplant the Democratic National Committee in registering and organizing voters. CORPORATE PACs. With CEOs barred from writing unlimited checks to parties, PAC donations will be prized -- as will corporate execs' ability to bundle checks for favorite candidates. LOSERS: TERRY MCAULIFFE. The DNC chair and master of big-dollar donors, can no longer take their checks but still hasn't found enough small givers to replace them. LABOR UNIONS AND ADVOCACY GROUPS. The court upheld McCain-Feingold's ban on broadcast issue ads in the weeks before elections. Muting the AFL-CIO, the NRA, the Sierra Club, and the like will lessen their clout in Hill and White House races. By Alexandra Starr and Paula Dwyer 
| | |
 Copyright BWStory.copyright, Bloomberg L.P.Terms of Use | Privacy Notice |
Printer-Friendly Version
