Half of NC going blue in 2008

by Jerome Armstrong, Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 11:23:53 PM EST

Great news for the Dem candidate in '08:

North Carolina appears headed to becoming the third state in the nation to abandon the winner-take-all method for awarding its electoral votes as the House tentatively agreed Thursday to shelve the method.

In its place, according to the measure approved on a largely party-line vote, would be a more proportional method that would reward the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each of the state's congressional districts.

The Senate already has passed the meaure, which would take effect in 2008. A final House vote could come Friday, then the bill would go to Gov. Mike Easley, a Democrat, just like the majority in the Legislature, which has backed the change. The state Democratic Party also supports it.

The Democratic candidate would be sure to receive at least 3 EV's from NC, and probably as high as 7-8, depending on the nominee. Eye on '08 points out that Dems have the trifecta in Arkansas and Louisiana as well, where they could possibly also make this change. At the least, it ensures that candidates are going to be coming to NC during the 2008 contest. If this had been in effect during 2000, Gore would have been President.



Update [2007-7-27 23:41:44 by Jerome Armstrong]: Just to note though, it's not a done deal yet; the House still has to pass it, though it looks good.




Tags: North Carolina (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 53 Comments :: Post a Comment


Re: Half of NC going blue in 2008 (none / 0)

it also increases the case for choosing Edwards.


by bruh21 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 11:25:10 PM EST

there are probably (none / 0)

3 districts in NC Kucinich could win...


Call it "Medicare Option" not public option
by TarHeel on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 11:27:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Really? (none / 0)

Maybe I should move to NC!


"Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
by molly bloom on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 11:29:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Kucinich and Cindy Sheehan (none / 0)

have been to Carrboro (right next to Chapel Hill) this year already...

Orange County and Durham County voted 70% for Kerry


Call it "Medicare Option" not public option
by TarHeel on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 11:42:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Actually (none / 0)

I think it harms the case.  Under a winner-take-all system, Edwards would probably win 15, while another candidate would probably win 0.  If the votes were allocated by Congressional district, most of the candidates would probably win 5 or 6, while Edwards might win 6 or 7.

A net gain of one electoral vote isn't much reason to choose Edwards.


by Drew on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 12:34:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually (none / 0)

it helps it because when he spends money there as a the party nominee (should he win the primaries) he can make the case that such efforts is worth it. It will force the democrats to see this as a part of their strategy. its less likely to happen with other candidates who will not carry as much of teh state as edwards could- in other words- he can say look this is the floor, but if we do a little bit more we can get even more. all hrc or obama can expect is only the areas that will vote dem no matter what. edwards can say i won the state as a senator etc.


by bruh21 on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 02:25:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

if they do it (none / 0)

no matter who the nominee is it means more appearances in PARTS of NC than ever before by the democrats.

unfortunately it's going to be some district type thing so only the swing districts will see candidates


Call it "Medicare Option" not public option
by TarHeel on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 10:38:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: if they do it (none / 0)

but thats my point precisely- who would matter in the swing districts? a candidate who has proven he can win them or ones that have not?


by bruh21 on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 10:49:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Half of NC going blue in 2008 (none / 0)

Is this for real? I find it's hard to believe.


Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?
by areyouready on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 11:25:54 PM EST

in today's (none / 0)

Raleigh paper


Call it "Medicare Option" not public option
by TarHeel on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 11:27:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Half of NC going blue in 2008 (none / 0)


Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?
by areyouready on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 11:26:01 PM EST

Re: Half of NC going blue in 2008 (none / 0)

Is this for real, I find it's hard to believe.


Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?
by areyouready on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 11:26:17 PM EST

Re: great news (none / 0)

I don't think Repubs control any blue states to hurt dems though, how many states have dems in control enough in red states to do something like this? obviously in California or New York this would be terrable.


Obama! because 51% isn't enough!
by nevadadem on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 11:29:05 PM EST

It's a terrible idea. (2.00 / 1)

For so many reasons.

The most important of which, in case this is among the justifications for the North Carolina plan, it does nothing to prevent a candidate who loses the popular vote from winning the majority of the electoral college.  George Bush won a majority of Congressional districts in 2000, despite losing the popular vote.

The best state-based solution to that problem remains the Amar Plan, which Maryland recently voted for.  It guarantees that the winner of the poplar vote is the winner in the electoral college.

North Carolina Democrats should have had the foresight to support that plan, rather than this shortsighted crap.


by Drew on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 12:44:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: great news (none / 0)

Yeah, this could really bite the Dems if some of the big blue states start enacting such laws.

New York's safe with Spitzer in charge, but there must be some others.


by Bush Bites on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 04:29:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

you need the legislature AND (none / 0)

governor...

very few blue states are GOP for both


Call it "Medicare Option" not public option
by TarHeel on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 10:39:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: great news (none / 0)

I don't think there is a blue state that is under total control of Republicans. You need control over both houses of the state legislature and the governor for passing such a bill and signing it into law.

The only state with such a Republican trifecta are red states where such a change would help Democrats like TX, MO, FL


by micha1976 on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 07:08:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Half of NC going blue in 2008 (none / 0)

Wow! This is huge.


by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 11:29:07 PM EST

Re: Half of NC going blue in 2008 (none / 0)

big tent......for the first time in a long time I 100% agree with you........


Obama! because 51% isn't enough!
by nevadadem on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 11:33:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Half of NC going blue in 2008 (none / 0)

Well, I assume you agree with me on ending the war.

On how bad Roberts and Alito are.

On how outrageous BushCo is.

See, this is the problem with Obama supporters, tunnel vision.

Unlike you, I think about a whole lot more than how Obama is doing.

I say this with respect for your zeal, but please get involved in ISSUES again.


by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 11:45:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Half of NC going blue in 2008 (none / 0)

I do agree with all of you on the issues you listed above, but not on your remedies, I do like Edwards and If I thought he could go toe to toe with Hillary.


Obama! because 51% isn't enough!
by nevadadem on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 11:52:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Half of NC going blue in 2008 (none / 0)

I support Dodd, but not in a zealous way.


by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 12:09:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Half of NC going blue in 2008 (none / 0)

I would maybe have supported him.


Obama! because 51% isn't enough!
by nevadadem on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 11:52:31 PM EST

Re: Half of NC going blue in 2008 (none / 0)

this system should be in place in mass. the dems would sweap all the congressional districts anyway.


bentheben
by bentheben on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 11:52:44 PM EST

Be careful what you wish for... (3.00 / 1)

nevadadem is right in sensing that proportional allocation would be a disaster for us in NY, CA, and others.

Florida is plurality Democratic, but with a big unaffiliated and third party bloc.  And it is horrifically gerrymandered favoring the Republicans.

If we used a Congressional District model to apportion Electors here, there would be almost no point in voting, the districts are so skewed.  You could just count the Congressional delegation and allocate by their numbers, in which Dems are at a huge and totally unrepresentative disadvantage.


by GreginFL on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 11:56:12 PM EST

Re: Be careful what you wish for... (none / 0)

for this election cycle the extra  electoral votes would be great. Didn't Colorado dems get something on the ballot that failed a while back?


Obama! because 51% isn't enough!
by nevadadem on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 11:58:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Be careful what you wish for... (none / 0)

I think they tried to do this by referendum in Colorado, but it didn't pass.  Democrats now are in complete control of Colorado, but I think we should go for the whole enchilada in 2008; this type of arrangement in CO may only hurt us, if the Dem. nominee wins the state.  The only state other than NC that I can think of where this is possible AND may be beneficial to us is Louisiana, although if passed, may only get us New Orleans district.


by silver spring on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 12:09:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Be careful what you wish for... (none / 0)

yeah I obviously hope it happens in Nc but in general I don't think it's a good thing, most districts are obvious in which way they would vote so only one the edge ones would recieve any attention, better to just go with popular vote to being with.


Obama! because 51% isn't enough!
by nevadadem on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 12:16:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Be careful what you wish for... (none / 0)

i agree .. may work well in NC if Rep. wins state, we would still get at least 3 districts (1,4,12) which Kerry carried by 57,56,61% respectively & maybe Dist. 13 which Kerry carried by 50.35%. (Reps carried every other dist w/ at least 55%).  However, as BruinKid points out in post further down, what if the Dem. nominee wins the state ???  


by silver spring on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 12:41:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Be careful what you wish for... (3.00 / 1)

this can be politically very tricky ... let's say theoretically Dem. % in NC increases by exactly 6.5% over 2004 numbers -- across-the-board statewide and district-wide (this rarely happens in real life, but let's say theoretically) ... the Dem. would then win state by 50.1%, but would lose a majority (7) of districts w/ the final result being 8 Dem. electoral votes (2 statewide + 6 districts -- the 4 mentioned above plus 7th & 8th) and 7 Rep. electoral votes.... so we would get barely half of the electoral votes, even though we won the state.  What if furthermore, the 7th & 8th are only slightly less Dem. & we lose them also, even if we win the state ... whereby we would then  win the state but lose most electoral votes.  It's kind of like the electoral college; only on a smaller scale ... (God, I wish we just had simple majority rule, esp. in 2000)....


by silver spring on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 12:58:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Be careful what you wish for... (none / 0)

Basically safe or leaning Democratic states it is bad.  In states that are toss ups it could be good or bad.  In states that lean or are safe Republican, it is a good thing to have happen.  

Simple way to break it down.  


by JeremiahTheMessiah on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 12:07:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Congressional District allocation is not good (none / 0)

due to various bits of creative line drawing.

Proportionally splitting EVs isn't all that awful. But only as long as everybody does it.

Proportional EVs would also really really change the whole art of a campaign, since it would depend more on GOTV (even in safe states).


by RBH on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 01:45:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Half of NC going blue in 2008 (3.00 / 1)

Um, can't North Carolina actually "go blue" in 2008, perhaps if Edwards is our nominee?  People have been saying all along that NC could go blue under the right conditions, mostly from the rapidly declining popularity of the GOP.  Throw in a real challenge to Elizabeth Dole, and Gov. Easley's popularity, we could actually take all 15 electoral votes under the current winner-take-all system.

If that's the case, then Democrats would actually hurt themselves with this move, by giving the Republicans back at least 5 electoral votes.

Just like in Colorado, where it looks increasingly like we can take the whole enchilada in 2008, this may be a bad move.


by BruinKid on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 12:31:41 AM EST

Re: Half of NC going blue in 2008 (none / 0)

The last Democratic presidential candidate to win North Carolina was Jimmy Carter in 1976.  Could Edwards win the overall vote in NC in 2008?  Sure he could.  But will he be the nominee?  I hope so.

In any case, I think it is safe to say we will come out ahead on this in most Presidential elections.


Enough is enough!
by Bear83 on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 12:39:43 AM EST

2004 Presidential results by NC district (none / 0)

CD1: D 57.4%, R 42.4%
CD2: R 54.1%, D 45.6%
CD3: R 67.8%, D 31.9%
CD4: D 55.2%, R 44.3%
CD5: R 66.3%, D 31.9%
CD6: R 69.4%, D 30.2%
CD7: R 55.9%, D 43.7%
CD8: R 54.5%, D 45.4%
CD9: R 63.4%, D 36.3%
CD10:R 66.9%, D 32.7%
CD11:R 56.9%, D 42.5%
CD12:D 62.5%, R 37.1%
CD13:D 52.4%, R 47.2%

So in a decent Democratic year we should expect at least 4 electoral votes.  There are 4 more that are "potential" pickups...aka Bush got less than 60% in 2004.  Three of those four districts are represented by Democratic Congressmen (Etheridge, McIntyre, Shuler) and the fourth is Larry Kissell's district.


by KickinIt on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 12:48:10 AM EST

Re: 2004 Presidential results by NC district (none / 0)

what's your source for cong dist numbers; i got very similar numbers from "RaceTracker" but there are some differences (a few % points) in a couple districts ??


by silver spring on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 01:02:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 2004 Presidential results by NC district (none / 0)

http://www.polidata.us/pub/reports/37a4a 4a.pdf


by KickinIt on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 10:28:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 2004 Presidential results by NC district (none / 0)

great diary, great comment. thanks.


by alipi on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 11:20:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Half of NC going blue in 2008 (none / 0)

John Edwards is jumping for joy right now!


by bsavage on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 01:13:08 AM EST

Re: Half of NC going blue in 2008 (none / 0)

This is great news to hear. Best of all, it will probably increase Democratic voter turnout in 2008...seeing as how voting Democratic won't be entirely futile.


Sincerely, Another silly populist.
by kupo on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 01:55:37 AM EST

Right (none / 0)

it could help someone like Kissell DEPENDING on how NC voters like the presidential nominees


Call it "Medicare Option" not public option
by TarHeel on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 10:41:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Suckage (none / 0)

This sucks for Edwards, who would gain 15 EVs from NC and not 6-10.

This also means that we MUST gain control of legislatures across the country, especially in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Michigan and Texas.


by KainIIIC on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 03:03:15 AM EST

Re: Half of NC going blue in 2008 (none / 0)

Gerrymandering for the White House...not a good idea.  

How about win the state, get the electoral votes.  The founding fathers got it right.  Work within our system of Government and win it for the Dems.  

I'm an NC native and an Edwards supporter!


by funphil on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 07:33:22 AM EST

Ummm.. (none / 0)

Why is this gerrymandering? Creating bullshit districts in the shape of a butterfly or a starfish is gerrymandering, making sure that electoral votes are cast so as to more closely resemble the will of the people is perfectly legit. I think that what the founding fathers designed worked well for their time, but I think that a modern America should have either a direct democracy (which I think is preferrable) or at the very least, electoral votes should be parsed out fairly. If 49% of a state votes for one party, and 51% votes for another party, I think it is indefensible to silence just under half of the electorate because they did not reach the magical 50%. Would you disagree? By continuing to operate this way, what we are really saying is that we value the majority opinion more than we value the right of each citizen to have a voice.


by alipi on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 11:26:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ummm.. (3.00 / 1)

Ummm, Gerrymandering is a HUGE issue for this. Take the hugely Gerrymandered state of Michigan, where despite the fact that both Al Gore and John Kerry won the state, they only won 5/15 electoral districts. That means they would get only 7 out of 17 votes. Great Democracy there.

The system that would be much more fair would be the Colorado system splitting it proportionally, not depending on how the Electoral districts may possibly made and very well be Gerrymandered.

Or the Maryland system, where the state goes based on the popular vote.


by KainIIIC on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 12:30:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Half of NC going blue in 2008 (none / 0)

This is a cheap solution to a bigger problem.  Why make this anemic move to "adjust" the electoral college problem, when we should just abolish it altogether, or use the National Popular Vote plan - being debated in NC  right now - and have actual PEOPLE choose the president.


DC Secularism Examiner
by Qshio on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 09:44:36 AM EST

Re: Half of NC going blue in 2008 (none / 0)

we have a better chance of winning virginia than we do winning North Carolina unless the Democratic nomaniee is Mike Easley. I'm not too sure that Edwards is too well liked anymore in North Carolina outside of Democratic circles


by orin76 on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 11:27:19 AM EST

Re: Half of NC going blue in 2008 (3.00 / 1)

There will be a ballot initiative in Calif to do the same thing, that is give about 22 of Calif's 55
electoral votes to the Repubkican nominee. This is a TOTAL DISASTER, making it impossible for a Democrat
to win the presidency -- this move in NC is a total
head fake,give us three EV, take away 22.

The solution is http://NationalPopularVote.com,
already passed in MD and in about eleven state legislative bodies.
Get behind REAL reform, not a sucker play.


by ssilberstein on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 01:37:15 PM EST

Re: Half of NC going blue in 2008 (none / 0)

When I first read the story, I was excited, but the voices of reason in this thread have convinced me this is a bad idea.  Congressional districts can easily be gerrymandered.  Kerry only won something like 150 Congressional districts, despite getting 48% of the popular vote.

Sure, this plan could give us 3 or so votes in North Carolina.  We could even conceivably win a vote in Nebraska, given the right circumstances, but it's not a good trade off.  

I hate the electoral college system.  I would like to see it abolished.  But before that, you would have to institute a public financing of campaigns to cover the astonishing costs and prevent the whole system being (even more) taken over by rich candidates.  In the meantime, delegate electoral votes through proportional representation.


Follow the 2010 election cycle in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.
by TheUnknown285 on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 02:37:55 PM EST

Re: Half of NC going blue in 2008 (none / 0)

I don't think it will make that much of a difference. The states that were the difference maker in 2004 were IA, NM and OH. If the dems win IA and NM without carrying OH it won't make a difference.  The Dems still need either FL or OH to win the election.


by olawakandi on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 09:06:27 PM EST

Re: Half of NC going blue in 2008 (none / 0)

There are many ways the Democrats can win without either OH or FL

We could win IA, NM, and CO or we could win IA, CO and the 3-4 EVs from NC and win

AZ and NV are possibilities as are VA and AR

Granted it would all be much easier if we won FL or OH. If we win Florida in '08 there is no conceivable map for the Republicans to make up the difference.


by College Progressive on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 11:56:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Half of NC going blue in 2008 (none / 0)

As someone from MD, I hate our state creating this joke of a system on the national popular vote.

This means MD's votes, which are reliably Democratic, could then go to a Republican because the 49 other states said so.

The voters in my state should be offended that in Annapolis, they are willing to take the views of 49 other states and apply them to Maryland, even if we disagree.

This system would have given our electoral votes in 2004 to George W. Bush.  That to me is unacceptable when we resoundingly voted against him.


I'm proud to be a Hillary Clinton supporter!
by takingbackamerica on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 02:00:16 AM EST

Clinton/Obama-Meeting with Leaders of our enemies? (none / 0)

What do you all think about the Clinton-Obama row over meeting with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela and North Korea?

Personally, though Clinton seemed more measured, her answer delivers us more of the same.  I really liked Obama's fresh approach.  

This is an important issue that is key to reversing the damage that Bush/Cheney has done to American image in the world.  Vote on your preferenc on http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid= 249

Make your voice heard.  It's important.


by frankie on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 12:00:33 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.

Login
Username:

Password: