SixFifty

lessons from America

Nebraska a major headache for networks

Once again – as on so many occasions this election cycle – the blogosphere and the number-crunching experts on sites like 538, DailyKos, electoral-vote et al are way ahead of the game.  And the TV networks and even 24/7 news channels like CNN are failing to either be accurate or informative.  What is the cause of this?  It is Obama winning one of Nebraska’s 5 electoral college votes – an event which joins the long list of records broken this year.  

As electoral-vote explains:

“Nebraska is one of the two states (along with Maine) that awards one electoral vote for each congressional district carried plus two for the statewide winner. It now appears that Obama won NE-02 (Omaha) and picks up another electoral vote. This is the first time in history that either state has split its EVs.”

CNN and other major news networks just can’t cope with this fact and don’t – at least as yet – show it on their maps.  And there has been very little mainsteam discussion of even the possibility of it happening, as far as I can tell.  Where as Nate, Kos and others (including me!) have been talking about it for a while and following the vote count in Nebraska closely.

Proving the rule that incumbents when they keep winning under a system don’t want to change it and then look like sore losers when they immediately reverse their position upon losing (even just one electoral vote),

“Nebraska Republicans have reacted to this development with dismay and intend to introduce legislation in 2009 to go to a winner-take-all system like 48 other states. Although technically the (unicameral) legislature is nonpartisan, de facto, the Republicans control it and also the governor’s mansion, so they will probably succeed.”

And going back to one of my favourite subjects, reforming the electoral college, electoral-vote.com some great analysis of how Nebraska may prove a fillip to the national popular vote movement: 

“An indirect effect of Obama winning the electoral vote is to provide a solid precedent for allowing a state to allocate its electoral votes as its state legislature determines by state law. This issue could come up again if the Interstate Compact is adopted by states with 270 electoral votes. If this happens, then those states will cast all their electoral votes for the winner of the national popular vote (not the state popular vote), de facto eliminating the electoral college without a constitutional amendment. Currently four states (Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, and New Jersey) have passed it. If another dozen or so blue states were to pass it, it would come into being and there would surely be court fights about the right of a state legislature to determine how its electoral votes were cast (even though the constitution is pretty clear it is up to the states to choose their electors as they wish). Having a precedent for something other than winner-take-all would strengthen that court case.”

Advertisements

November 10, 2008 Posted by | systems | , , , , | 1 Comment

One in the (postal) bag for Obama

A number of my American friends living in London have already sent back their absentee ballots.  Meghan herself has just done it – see photo of her NY ballot paper and read her comments on the process.

Last Friday I met up for dinner with a friend who is registered to vote in Florida.  Miami-Dade County to be precise.  That was one of the hotspots back in 2000, with shenigans (definitely), irregularities (alleged) and the likelihood of votes not counting that should have been, and vice-versa.  Anyway, she showed me a sealed envelope with her completed ballot inside.  A vote for Obama she proudly proclaimed. The envelope was posted over weekend – apparently the lady at the post office even wished her luck.  Now the ballot paper should be winging its merry way to Florida to await being processed and added into the Obama column once polls have closed and votes are counted.

Or will it? …. The counting of absentee ballot papers is a contentious and complicated issue, and plenty of urban myths and anecdotes abound.  I’ve done some web research on it (useful discussions here, here and here) but don’t claim this is a definitive answer.  Absentee ballots [postal votes in UK parlance] are counted separately from in-person votes and often totalled up separately; sometimes on election night, but usually it can take several weeks, especially as some states allow absentee ballots to come in up to ten days after close of polling.  My belief is that Florida is one of those states – it certainly used to be.  The official guidelines say the ballot “must be mailed or delivered in person to the Supervisor of Elections no later than 7 p.m. on election day.”  That could mean, as has happened in the past,  that ballots are continued to be accepted for a defined provided that they are postmarked no later than the day of the election.  Or even in the absence of a postmark (as I saw remarked in one place and I don’t know if this is still true or not) if the witness’s signature is dated no later than the election day.  Either way, the official result, as certified by the State’s top election official, is often not for several weeks after the election itself.  But that final result does include all the verified absentee ballots.  So the answer is yes, absentee votes do count.

However, there are a couple of caveats; although hopefully some of these should have been lessened by the passing of the Help America Vote Act.   A major problem (in Florida in 2000 especially and other places too) was the lack of a properly implemented standard for physically verifying and counting those absentee ballots.  Different pollworkers and different counties might interpret what constituted a valid vote in a  different way.  Primarily, as the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports, there needs to be “tighter security and better training for poll workers counting absentee ballots.”   One other problem my friend didn’t encounter but in the past has been significant is the late sending out of ballots to voters. As Fairvote reports, “in Broward County, Florida, 58,000 absentee ballots were sent out late for the 2004 election. Many voters simply did not have the time to mark their ballot and send it in to be counted”.  Still to early to know if it might be factor this election.

There is one plausible way though that some absentee voters could feel themselves disenfranchised: that is politically.   As pointed out on the FairVote website:

“How many times on election night have we gone to bed thinking a particular candidate or ballot measure was winning in a close race, only to find that after absentee and provisional ballots were counted the results had changed? …  If the race is close, final determination will depend on the counting of absentee and provisional ballots. If the race is not close, we will know who won on election night.”

If you aren’t in a battleground state or if one candidate wins by a landslide, your vote will count in the official tallies, but it makes no difference to the media and political narrative of the election.  However, if in the state you voted in the result is close or perceived to be so, then suddenly your ballot paper matters again.  It’s not just down to the voters though.  The decision on whether your vote is seen as important on election night and how it can affect the result can also be made by the TV networks if/when they ‘call’ a race and by the pundits and party spokespeople as they spin that decision and the campaigns’ response. And we all know of or remember the horrors of that fateful night in November 2000.  2004 wasn’t far off either. 

Here’s hoping every absentee vote does count this time.  But time, luck, human failings, partisan judgement and the overall electoral picture will determine how close we get to that ideal.  And fingers-crossed in Florida especially: for the right result democratically and politically.

October 23, 2008 Posted by | counting votes, systems | , , , , | 1 Comment

The distorted lens

And I’m not talking the media for once.  It’s always gratifying seeing other people blog about the the pitfalls of the ‘winner-takes-all’ system, or at least pick up and supporting what political anoraks like me and my much more learned brethren on 538 are saying.  Exhibit A is this from the Guardian’s technology blog:

FiveThirtyEight.com has lots of maps – including the remarkable result from 1984, when Reagan got 525/538 of the “electoral college” votes while getting 60% of the votes, and the amazing one from 1972, when Nixon got 62% of the votes cast but 520 “electoral college” votes. And then there’s 2000, when.. oh no, let’s not. Which goes to show how the first-past-the-post system, as used in the US states – and here, since you mention it – can distort things.”

It’s also highly unusual but very welcome to find specific mention of the electoral reform campaign on the back page rather than the inside / comment pages of newspapers. But here Martin Samuels, the Times’ chief football correspondent, makes an insightful connection between politics and sport.  I’m going come back to this article – exhibit B as it were – in another post shortly.

October 22, 2008 Posted by | lessons from America, systems | , | Leave a comment