October surprises

By Renae Cowley & Frank Pignanelli

There are two topics that dominate discussions every four years: October surprises and the Electoral College. We do not want to miss our chance to opine.

Columnist Karl Rove described the closeness of the presidential election by utilizing the famous “butterfly effect” posed by scientist Edward Lorenz. (“Does the flap of a butterfly’s wings in Brazil set off a tornado in Texas?”) We discuss what might make the difference in this extremely close race.

COWLEY: I didn’t expect to see back-to-back catastrophic hurricanes, but apparently, neither did FEMA. The federal government’s appallingly deficient response speaks to President Joe Biden’s and by proxy, Vice President Kamala Harris’, incompetence. Americans are suffering while Harris holds campaign rallies in North Carolina. These voters may see this as a deciding issue if they can even return to their homes to vote.

Donald Trump criticized Harris for avoiding media interviews. Now, she’s on a media blitz right as Trump backs out of 60 Minutes and cancels the second debate. Not only is this hypocritical, but he is also missing opportunities to court undecided voters.

An all-out war in the Middle East (or hopefully the avoidance of one) would undoubtedly have the biggest impact on the election.

PIGNANELLI: “We may not even recognize [the butterfly effect] happening until we’re looking in retrospect. Such is the state of our deeply polarized, closely divided nation.” – Karl Rove

Butterfly populations are decreasing due to various environmental and development factors. Yet, more rare than the actual insect is the so-called “butterfly effect” in politics. Tiny disturbances may impact a small category of voters but rarely change outcomes. Although the presidential election will be decided by less than 40,000 voters across seven battleground states, other elements will be involved to shift persuasion (i.e. voter turnout, major controversies, foreign affairs, etc.).

An October surprise in this presidential election will be a significant mistake made by a candidate rather than exposure of some controversy by a competing campaign. Both candidates have made statements or ignored specific tactics that may lead to a change with voters.

In the meantime, I recommend that readers worry more about repopulating their gardens with these beautiful creatures than about some slight political minutia.

Although presidential candidates are fighting for every vote, the Electoral College will decide the winner of the presidential contest. Is this institution antiquated with a realistic path to be abolished, or is it still needed?

COWLEY: The Electoral College is a constitutional compromise that gives smaller states proportional representation, like the allocation of congressional seats. Without it, predominantly Democrat urban centers would select who occupies the White House.

Attempts have been made to replace the Electoral College with a popular vote, including by Richard Nixon. Today it would overwhelmingly benefit Democrats. Utah, with a population half the size of New York City, would be wholly ignored.

All but two states use winner-take-all, where regardless of how close the popular vote is, all electors are awarded to the winner. If states followed Nebraska and Maine and allocated their electoral votes proportionally, it might open the door for three parties.

James Madison made the case for electors to exercise independent judgment rather than be committed. It’s an interesting argument that would make electors more well-known who now are probably more obscure than elected county surveyors (no offense, surveyors).

The race for 270 is wonky but has produced every president thus far. I don’t see that changing.

PIGNANELLI: The institution has evolved beyond recognition from the founders’ original intent of selected citizens deliberating in a thoughtful process — as described by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Papers 68. The existing “winner takes all” method is warping presidential elections as campaigns spend billions targeted on a few battleground states. However, status quo advocates like Renae contend a national presidential election is fraught with danger. A compromise is in order.

Maine and Nebraska provide two electors for the statewide winner, and the remaining electors are based on results in each congressional district. Because this substantially resolves current disadvantages, some politicos are advocating for a countrywide adoption. Electoralvotemap.com applied this system to contests since 2000 and concluded that margins would have varied but with similar ultimate results, except Mitt Romney would have won in 2012. Utah is among several states with minimal voting power in national elections. The Maine/Nebraska modification protects any small-state advantage while forcing candidates to moderate and focus attention on regions currently ignored.

Political onlookers are holding their breath for an October surprise in Utah. Will there be one?

COWLEY: The recent signature-gathering legislative audit provides ample fodder for Democrat Brian King and write-in candidate Phil Lyman. Using a tiny sample of Gov. Spencer Cox’s signatures submitted to be placed on the primary ballot, discrepancies in the validation rate were found. King and Lyman are unlikely to ignore this. The data from the audit is weak, but it’s hard to disagree with recommendations for increased transparency.

PIGNANELLI: Decades ago, as a candidate, I used October surprises against my opponents, and they returned the volleys. Now, mail balloting and pervasive social media diminish the effectiveness of most last-minute attacks. An unexpected major controversy external to campaigns would be the only impactful event.