Gerrymandering Future Presidential Elections

Every decade in years ending in zero, as mandated by the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. House of Representatives is reapportioned to account for population shifts within the country. As part of that process, many states choose, and some are forced, to redraw or redistrict the legislative lines of both the state and U.S. congressional districts. If this process proceeds in a state dominated by one party and not subject to a non-partisan commission, it usually results in obvious and exaggerated partisan gerrymandering—lines drawn to benefit one political party at the expense of the other. This process is considered constitutional as long as it does not harm the interests of minority or ethnic groupings.

Such was the case in Ohio, a state carried by Democrat Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012, and a state where 38% of voters in 2012 identified as Democrats (compared to 31% identifying as Republican) according to 2012 exit polls. Because of the gerrymandered congressional redistricting process carried out by the Ohio Republican Party in the Buckeye State in 2011, 12 of Ohio’s 16 (or 75%) U.S. congressional districts are held by Republicans representing relatively safe districts. Ohio voters have little chance to affect the outcome of congressional elections during the general election season. Most observers know, before the election even occurs, which party will win which congressional district. Regardless of which party benefits from gerrymandering, such a situation in a swing state like Ohio is an abomination. Ohio is not alone and a number of states were gerrymandered in an extreme fashion in 2011 (including Illinois which had Democrats drawing the lines).

As harmful to representative democracy as gerrymandering of legislative districts is, a new movement to essentially gerrymander future presidential elections is beginning. In a number of swing states in which the state legislature and gubernatorial office is controlled by the GOP, efforts are beginning to change the way electoral votes would be won and accounted for. In all states except Maine and Nebraska, electoral votes are currently awarded in a winner-take-all format—i.e., whichever presidential candidate wins the popular vote in a particular state wins all the electoral votes. However, in a number of battleground states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin there have been rumblings from GOP elected and election officials that perhaps it is time to alter that accounting method. In Virginia, a full-fledged effort is underway. Why? Because these swing states, despite their swing state status, have been trending towards the Democratic Party for a number of years and all were won by Obama in the last two elections. By shifting the awarding of electoral votes from a winner-take-all format to one based on the winner of gerrymandered congressional districts, a state party could alter the outcome of a presidential election in that state and potentially change the outcome of the presidential election in the country.

Using Ohio as an example, had such a congressional district system been in place for 2012, President Obama would have received just six of Ohio’s eighteen total electoral votes—he carried the four Democratic districts and would have received two more electoral votes (representing Ohio’s two senate seats) for carrying the whole state. Add up potential electoral vote losses in other swing states for Obama and it is a matter of basic arithmetic that the 2012 electoral vote total would have been much closer than the 332-206 result. In fact, Huffington Post crunched the numbers for the entire country. In 2012, had all states utilized the congressional district method currently used by Maine and Nebraska, the electoral vote result would have been: Obama 265 - Romney 273. This despite the fact that Obama would have won a clear popular vote victory. 

Will this effort to gerrymander the presidential election succeed? With media attention and increased public awareness, such schemes to game future presidential elections will likely fail. But it is unclear whether this issue will receive the attention it deserves over the next three years to stave off a successful effort.

A version of this blog post appeared on Politix.

Pulling the Plug on Politico's Arena

Well I gotta say I was shocked when I received the email (see below) authored by Jon Harris and Jim VandeHei telling me that now "was a good time to put the Arena feature to rest." After all, Politico Arena contributor's like myself do not get compensated (at least I didn't) and Arena was popular enough this election season alone to account for "12 million page views" according to Politico.

So why kill it? I suspect it has something to do with the fact that Politico "will be discussing different ways that outside opinion journalism can fit creatively in a site that remains, in terms of the work of our own editors and reporters, steadfastly committed to ideological neutrality." But wasn't the purpose of the Arena to allow for the exchange of opinion and ideas? Perhaps we'll never know why Politico decided to go in this direction but I suspect at some point we'll figure it out. I hope something comparable fills the void or that Politico will rethink their decision.

Here is the unedited email:

A Note to Arena Contributors –

We began the Arena feature – conceived to be a kind of rolling, real-time op-ed page – just over four years ago, in the final two months of the 2008 campaign.

Over these four years Arena has hosted – thanks to the intelligence and good will of contributors – thousands of constructive, serious, provocative and civil debates on issues facing Washington and the nation. Your submissions often made news--picked up  by reporters and columnists at other publications.

Arena's launch reflected a spirit of innovation at our young publication – still only six years old. That spirit, which continues to guide us, pushes us to a certain healthy restlessness. As we contemplated the publication's future in the wake of the recent election, POLITICO editors decided it is time to think more about the role of outside opinion on our site and how to present it to maximum impact. In that light, it seemed to us that now was a good time to put the Arena feature to rest.

We are proud of its content – and the 12 million page views Arena generated in just this last presidential campaign – and want to push forward with something new before the feature becomes familiar and loses any edge.

In the months ahead, our editors, led by POLITICO Editor-at-Large Bill Nichols, will be discussing different ways that outside opinion journalism can fit creatively in a site that remains, in terms of the work of our own editors and reporters, steadfastly committed to ideological neutrality.

In addition to the thanks we give to all you as contributors, we'd like to thank the three terrifically smart and conscientious people who have served as Arena moderators these past four years – Fred Barbash, David Mark, and Erika Lovley.

We look forward to enlisting you in more conversations and debates about issues of the day on POLITICO in our post-Arena future.

With gratitude,

John Harris
Jim VandeHei

From Congress to My Classroom: Zack Space, Part II

In the summer of 2011, former U.S. Rep. Zack Space (D-OH) visited my American Congress and Presidency classes. Elected in the Democratic wave of 2006, Space represented Ohio's 18th congressional district until his defeat in the Republican wave election of 2010. Today, he visited with my upper-level students (mostly majors) currently enrolled in those courses plus students taking my mostly freshman-level Government & Politics in the U.S. course.

As was the situation last year, the students were treated to a display of knowledge, candor, honesty, and humor that is rare for guest speakers, particularly the cautious crowd of current and former members of Congress. All this despite the fact that he had a long drive from Dover early in the morning to make it to my 8:50 Congress class. And unlike some soon-to-be-retiring members of Congress, no speaking fee was required to get him to discuss such varied topics as the fiscal cliff, gerrymandering, campaign finance, and the recent election. Many thanks to Mr. Space for taking a huge chunk out of his day to come visit with my students at The University of Akron.

The Obama-Romney Post-Election Meeting: No Bromance Expected

Politico Arena Topic: A Romney-Obama Friendship?

The meeting between Governor Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama is the political equivalent of two head coaches of rival sports teams shaking hands after the conclusion of a heated game. Just like the Yankees and Red Sox or Packers and Bears, the handshake means nothing except to signify that at the end of the contest, the combatants can be somewhat civil towards each other but the rivalry will continue.

Unlike John McCain who continued in his capacity as a U.S. Senator following his 2008 defeat, Mitt Romney has no position in government and thus will have absolutely no impact on policy or politics. Democrats won’t need to listen to him and Republicans won’t want to.

I also do not foresee Obama and Romney becoming bosom buddies down the road as Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter or George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton did. The 2012 election was a particularly bitter contest (not that all presidential elections aren’t tough) and both candidates seemed to have a high level of disdain for one another. In the end, the meeting will make for a nice photo-op but will disappear quickly from the public consciousness as focus will turn back to the fiscal cliff Washington is staring at through the windshield.

Permalink to Politico Arena comment

Dan Coffey: The Myth of the Ohio Bellwether County

My colleague, Professor Dan Coffey, the primary author of Buckeye Battleground, has written a highly-relevant post that should be of much interest as we enter the final few days of the 2012 presidential election. It is titled "The Myth of the Ohio Bellwether County."

Coffey observes that: "One of the questions that I often get is what counties are the most important bellwethers for Ohio. Many pundits claim that these counties can predict the outcome of the national election and so observers should keep a close eye on them (see here or here). Generally, I point out that this notion is largely a myth and...go through some of the reasons these “bellwether” counties are competitive, but why the impact of these counties tends not to mean that much in helping to understand the presidential race in Ohio."

Instead Coffey argues observers should focus on regions: "it is not really useful to think of individual counties. Rather counties are within regions and regional differences do tell us something important, a point which me and my co-authors make in covering the Five Ohios in our book Buckeye Battleground. Individual counties are often driven by the same sets of forces, and aggregating counties into regions provides a better sense of the whole picture.

Coffey's post is located here: "The Myth of the Ohio Bellwether County."

The "War on Women," the Gender Gap, and the 2012 Election

Politico Arena Topic: Will Mitt be damaged by Mourdock's rape comment?

Governor Mitt Romney was already in a bind over his “binders full of women” comment after the second presidential debate at Hofstra University. The gap that he had seemingly been closing among women in this country started to widen after that slip-up. But the latest volley in the “war on women” could blow that gap wide open.

Indiana Republican Senate candidate Richard Mourdock’s comment on October 23 in a debate that rape is “something that God intended to happen” is as abhorrent and ridiculous a statement as one could utter and just the latest controversial comment on women that Republicans have offered up (hey Indiana Republicans—you sure you don’t want to bring back Senator Richard Lugar, a person as intelligent and respected as any person currently serving in Congress?).

If Mourdock’s comments were an isolated incident, it may not have had an impact. But starting with Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh’s comments this spring that Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke, who testified in front of Congress on the topic of contraception, was a “slut” and “prostitute,” it’s been a pretty tough year for the GOP on women’s issues.

Missouri Republican Senate candidate Todd Akin’s comment in August that “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down” has put the modern Republican Party’s views on abortion and women firmly under the media microscope and at the center of the 2012 presidential campaign. Akin has since compared his female opponent, Senator Claire McCaskill, to a dog at a recent fundraiser, and subsequently news has broken that he had been arrested several times in the past at the scene of abortion protests.

And Akin and Mourdock are not isolated cases. U.S. Representative Joe Walsh, a freshman from Illinois running for reelection in a very tight race, said in a recent debate that he was against all abortions without exception, even when the mother’s life was at stake because “with modern technology and science, you can’t find one instance….There is no such exception as life of the mother, and as far as health of the mother, same thing.”

So how does Governor Romney repair the damage? After all, Governor Romney enthusiastically endorsed Mourdock in his senate bid. I don’t think he can at this point. His only hope is that his advantage among men is bigger than his gap among women, a prospect that is highly unlikely.

Permalink to Politico Arena comment

Romney in a Bind(er) with Women

Politico Arena topic: Will women overlook Romney's 'binders' comment?

Women are one of the key demographic groups in the 2012 election. They vote at a higher rate than men—they composed 53% of the electorate in 2008 and 54% in 2004. In 2008, Senator Barack Obama was able to win the White House largely because of a 13 point margin among women. Senator John Kerry lost narrowly in 2004 largely because the gender gap closed to only 3 points. Until President Obama underperformed in the first presidential debate, he enjoyed a very large advantage among women ranging from 10-20 points in public opinion in many surveys. That gap narrowed in the days following the debacle in Denver.

Governor Mitt Romney’s comment in the second presidential debate that in an effort to find qualified women for his gubernatorial administration he collected “binders full of women” has been panned and it’s veracity questioned. Besides becoming a hash tag sensation on Twitter and fodder for late-night comics, political observers have brought new focus to Governor Romney’s policies on gender. And that focus has revealed positions that are sure to enlarge the gender gap. Mitt Romney’s position on the Fair Pay Act of 2009 (Lilly Ledbetter), the first piece of legislation signed into law by President Obama, has been: I’ll get back to you. His shifting positions on contraception and abortion from when he was a candidate for the U.S. Senate, to when he was Massachusetts governor, to when he was a Republican primary candidate, to when he was a general election candidate, can be described as nothing but Etch-a-Sketch.

But perhaps Governor Romney’s biggest problem is his own party. The modern Republican Party is openly hostile to women’s rights on a number of issues. From opposition to legislation mandating equal pay for equal work for women, to support for legislation in numerous states mandating transvaginal ultrasounds for women seeking abortions, to a Republican Party platform that says no abortions, no exceptions, many believe the GOP is on the wrong—and extreme—side of women’s issues. Governor Romney’s biggest problem with America’s women is being the nominee of a party viewed as wildly out of touch with the mainstream values of a majority of those women. Proudly carrying the banner of Republican Party orthodoxy on gender issues may be fine in a primary battle, but is very problematic in a general election and may well cost Romney the White House come election day.

Permalink to Politico Arena comment.

VP Debate 2012: High Expectations and Underestimating the Opponent Can be Perilous

Politico Arena Topic: Could Biden hit Ryan too hard?

There is no question that Team Obama needs a solid debate performance from Vice President Joe Biden in the VP debates. After a week of stories following President Barack Obama’s weak performance at the Denver Debate, a strong Biden showing would help staunch the bleeding. Democrats hope that Biden can land some punches and counter-punches on the Romney-Ryan agenda that President Obama failed to land or even throw. Especially facing the architect of the GOP’s budget, Biden will be expected to take Representative Paul Ryan to task for his plans on Medicare, Social Security, and a host of other controversial policy ideas.

The Vice President has one very large advantage going into the October 11 debate: expectations are very low for him. Known for his verbal gaffes, Biden is neither feared nor respected by Republicans, particularly by the VP nominee himself. Long-time Republican strategist Ed Rollins epitomizes this view when he told Fox News this summer that Ryan “is going to wipe up the floor with Biden in the debates.” However, high expectations and underestimating your opponent can be perilous heading into a debate—just ask Team Obama.

Permalink to Politico Arena comment

Mitt Romney and the Challenge of Being Likable

Politico Arena Topic: Was Ann Romney's Convention Speech a Game-Changer?

Ann Romney’s speech highlighted what we already knew—that she is a decent speaker who could potentially play the role of first lady effectively. The speech was by no means a “game changer” however. The most important speech of the convention has yet to happen. Mitt Romney’s speech will be the most watched, observed, and dissected speech at the GOP convention. Like any nominee trying to knock off an incumbent president, Governor Romney must demonstrate that he offers a different and better vision for America than the current president. He must convince wavering independents and Obama supporters from 2008 who are having buyer’s remorse to come to the Republican side. His task is made more difficult by the hard right stances of the Republican Party platform and utterances of GOP office holders and candidates in recent weeks that have received such negative publicity with the potential to turn off moderates and many women. Romney’s own sprint to the right during the GOP nomination process and his selection of running mate Paul Ryan with his unwavering social conservatism no doubt complicate this process.

Perhaps most challenging for Romney is that he must connect with the average American. The likeability gap between President Obama and Governor Romney is very real—he must close that gap as much as possible if he is to win the election. Americans prefer to cast a vote for someone they like. A candidate perceived as aloof and not being able to identify with the middle class of the country will struggle in the end. So Mitt Romney’s biggest challenge is to achieve what Ann Romney attempted to do last night—to convince America that despite his privileged upbringing and sheltered life, he can identify with the hopes, dreams, challenges, and struggles of everyday Americans. Perhaps most importantly, he must demonstrate that he actually cares about those same people.

Permalink to Politico Arena comment

Paul Ryan: An Unconventional VP Choice for a Conventional Campaign

Politico Arena Topic: Is Paul Ryan a Good VP Choice?

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) is an unconventional choice for a vice presidential running mate and certainly qualifies as a “bold” one. Time will tell if it is a good pick. Not many individuals from the U.S. House are chosen for the #2 slot—the last time that happened was 1984 with Walter Mondale’s selection of Geraldine Ferraro. House members usually lack the visibility and experience on the national stage that a senator or governor possess. But Ryan is different. He has become one of the leading voices of the new Republican Party—one of the 40-something “young guns” redefining the party’s brand of fiscal conservatism. He is a wonkish Gen Xer—a stark contrast with the man who picked him. Ryan is bright and has spent most of his adult life on Capitol Hill, including nearly 14 years as a member of the House—no Palin problem here (you can’t see Russia from his Janesville District but on a clear day you may be able to see Rockford).

The “Ryan Budget,” with its blend of fiscal austerity and massive cuts to the domestic safety net combined with compassion for the top earners and DoD, will now become a central focus of the campaign. To a great extent, this is something both liberals and conservatives relish—a real debate about the future priorities and values of the American economy. And up to this point, it is something the Romney campaign has been loath to explore in any way but the most vague and vacuous. That will now change.

From an Electoral Map perspective, the Ryan pick may put Wisconsin back in play—a state where President Obama has had a consistent if small lead in the polls throughout the campaign. Ryan’s Catholic upbringing and social conservatism will help the Romney campaign with Midwestern Catholics and perhaps other religious conservatives still uneasy about Romney’s faith. Without a doubt the Ryan pick energizes a GOP base sorely in need of energizing. Ryan gives the base a reason to vote FOR Romney instead of just AGAINST President Obama. But Ryan is a double-edged sword—those very reasons he may energize the base may be the same reasons he turns off independents and seniors in crucial swing states. The Obama campaign will not miss an opportunity to remind seniors in Florida, Pennsylvania, and Iowa—three of the top five states in terms of proportion of seniors per capita—what the Ryan Budget means for the future of Medicare. Thus, putting Wisconsin in play may ultimately come at the expense of handing Florida to Barack Obama in 2012—a trade the Obama campaign would make any day.

Permalink to Politico Arena comment

Veepstakes: The Case for Portman

Politico Arena Topic: Romney's Running Mate

Picking a running mate is the most important decision a presidential candidate can make. After all, they are not the president yet; they cannot order a military strike on a foreign country, cannot send American soldiers into harm’s way in a foreign land, cannot issue executive orders or sign bills into law. About the only thing of consequence a presidential candidate can do is pick the individual who will serve as their deputy should they be elected. It used to be that the vice presidential position was so inconsequential that it was the place where political careers went to die. In the modern presidency, however, vice presidents have become an important component of the presidential administration and a trusted adviser to the president. But the most important role of the vice president has remained timeless—to be ready to take over in the event that death or disability strikes the president. This transition has happened eight times in our history due to the death of the president and once due to resignation. However, too often in American history, presidential candidates (or the party machine in days gone by) have failed to ask a fundamental question when considering the person who will be only a heartbeat away from the presidency: is this person qualified and competent to be president in their own right?

With the pressure to win being paramount, running mates are often chosen because of geographical and ideological reasons, qualifications and competence be damned. Senator John McCain’s recent defense of his own 2008 decision aside, Sarah Palin was not qualified to be president. The world held its collective breath in 1992 when President George H.W. Bush collapsed in Japan as, just for a moment, the thought of “President Dan Quayle” took hold. And Spiro Agnew’s resignation as vice president after a lengthy investigation into his ethical and legal misdeeds allowed the country to avoid an even bigger Constitutional crisis when his boss Richard Nixon resigned a year later. These examples should cause presidential candidates to pause and reflect during the search for their running mate.

And so that brings us to Governor Mitt Romney’s decision about his own running mate. The usual cast of characters have been mentioned for months as speculation has continued nonstop since the spring: Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal, Tim Pawlenty, Rob Portman, and Paul Ryan. I do think it will be somebody from this group. All of these folks are relatively safe—there is not a Palin in the bunch. If the 2012 election were a football game, it is likely to be decided by a field goal, not a touchdown. Thus Romney does not need a Palinesque Hail Mary; rather, a short, high-percentage pass down field to get him into field goal range would be much more helpful. And Romney does not seem to be a gambler anyway—he is much more Aaron Rodgers than Brett Favre.

Given this, my gut and my head scream Rob Portman, the Ohio Senator no one knows much about. In terms of geography, Portman comes from perhaps the most important state of all in 2012—Ohio. No Republican has ever won the presidency without winning Ohio and only twice since 1896 has a Democrat achieved that, the last time being 1960. You win Ohio, you win the presidency. Portman, a longtime member of the U.S. House from Southwest Ohio, would help Romney in the state. Portman’s only downside in the Buckeye State is that he is relatively unknown to most Ohioans. But that is what a campaign is for and by the time November rolled around, most Ohioans would have an idea of who Portman is. Ideologically, Portman is a conservative, but not the kind of flamethrower that would turn off independent, swing voters. He is a soft spoken, pleasant, policy-wonkish individual that has proven he can work with individuals across the ideological and political spectrum. He will not excite the base in a Palineque sort of way, but he will not turn them off either.

And if Governor Romney considers the competent/qualified question I laid out above, no one on the list of frontrunners for veep comes close to Portman. He is absolutely qualified to be president—in fact much more so than Governor Romney himself. His resume, filled with a variety of experiences in the White House and on the Hill, is as strong as any president since George H.W. Bush. Besides spending 12 years in the U.S. House of Representatives and currently serving in his first term as a U.S Senator, Portman has held a variety of positions in the administrations of both Bushes including as an Associate White House Counsel, director of the White House Office of Legislative Affairs, U.S. trade ambassador, and director of the Office of Management and Budget. This is a better resume than most presidential candidates and if Romney fails to capture the White House in 2012, Portman would have to be considered a likely POTUS candidate in 2016. Romney, of course, may choose to go in a different direction. But if he is serious about picking the best person for the job, he need not look beyond the Buckeye State for his veep.

Permalink to Politico Arena comment

Romney's Tax Returns and the Politics of Perception

Politico Arena Topic: A Taxing Dilemma for Romney?

In 1968, Republican presidential candidate George Romney initiated the practice of releasing tax returns by making 12 years available to the public. Forty-four years later, his son, Mitt Romney, reluctantly made available only 1 year and that was only after withering criticism from his GOP rivals for the nomination. In 2008, when he was being vetted as a running-mate, Romney handed over 23 years of returns to the McCain campaign. No one knows for sure what the McCain people saw, but we are certain that Romney was not chosen.

By not releasing more returns, Romney leaves the impression that he has something to hide. Maybe he does, maybe he doesn’t. But in politics, perception is reality, especially at the presidential level. During a presidential campaign, transparency is the best policy because the questions will continue and the negative attention will not cease unless the campaign makes a good-faith effort to clear up any questions. Even members of Romney’s own Republican Party are questioning his motives in not releasing more returns—a sure sign that this tax return controversy will only get worse. President Obama did not put the birther nonsense to rest until the state of Hawaii released his long-form birth certificate in April 2011. That contrived controversy has now all but gone away except for the handful of nut jobs and conspiracy theorists like Donald Trump, Joe Arpaio, and Orly Taitz who can’t seem to let it go (and may also believe the world is flat and that the moon landing never happened).

For Romney, it is best to put that information out now, deal with the negative fallout during the summer, and have the issue behind him when he picks his running-mate and goes to the convention. By waiting, he only risks blunting the momentum he will need coming out of Tampa in the sprint toward election day.

Permalink to Politico Arena comment