|
If you are seeing this message, you may be experiencing temporary network problems. Please wait a few minutes and refresh the page. If the problem persists, you may wish to report it to your local Network Manager.
It is also possible that your web browser is not configured or not able to display style sheets. In this case, although the visual presentation will be degraded, the site should continue to be functional. We recommend using the latest version of Microsoft or Mozilla web browser to help minimise these problems.
Wiley InterScience | |||||||||||
  Presidential Studies QuarterlyVolume 35 Issue 1, Pages 116 - 137 Published Online: 8 Feb 2005 © 2010 Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress Published by the Center for the Study of the Presidency
Abstract | References | Full Text: HTML, PDF (Size: 236K) | Related Articles | Citation Tracking  FEATURES
The Contemporary Presidency: Do Nebraska and Maine Have the Right Idea? The Political and Partisan Implications of the District System AUTHOR's NOTE: I would like to thank Greg Thall for his research assistance, the Skidmore College Dean's Office for a Summer Collaborative Research grant, Clark Bensen of Polidata.org and David Huckabee of the Library of Congress for sharing their data on presidential election results, Bob Jones for his map-making wizardry, and Beau Breslin, David Canon, Ron Seyb, Susan Steer, and the late Larry Longley for their insightful comments. Copyright 2005 Center for the Study of the Presidency ABSTRACTAfter the 2000 presidential election, twenty-one states considered legislation to award their presidential electors using the district system, wherein one elector is awarded to the popular vote winner of each congressional district and the two state electors are awarded to the popular vote winner statewide. Historically, the district system is viewed as the politically feasible alternative to direct elections because it removes the distortions of the winner-take-all system and can be enacted by state law rather than constitutional amendment. However, the ultimate desirability of the district system lies in how it would change the conduct of presidential campaigns, not the counting of electoral college votes. Under the district system, presidential campaigns would shift their priorities from battleground states to battleground districts. The complexity and uncertainty in targeting these districts would force candidates to contest a larger and more geographically diverse percentage of the population than the current system. Moreover, the changes in presidential campaigns would increase the likelihood of presidential coattails and the prospects for unified government by increasing the competitiveness of congressional elections in swing presidential districts. Finally, the district system has a conservative bias because the swing battleground districts favor Republican presidential candidates and have fewer minority residents and recipients of public assistance than the nation as a whole. | 
|
|
 | ||||||||
