ISSUE / ELECTORAL VOTES : Democrat Group Campaigns for Changes in Delegate Laws

Weary of losing the presidency every four years, a small group of Democratic activists has been quietly trying to change the rules of the game in a way that could both help their party and transform presidential campaigns.

They are now on the verge of two victories significant enough to get opponents and potential supporters to finally take them seriously. The group, the Electoral Fairness Project, aims to get states to change the laws under which they select delegates to the electoral college--the formal mechanism for picking presidents after the popular vote has been tallied.

At present, 49 states choose electors by the winner-take-all method. The sole exception is Maine, whose system adopted in 1969 is seen by the Fairness Project as a model for the rest of the nation. Maine gives two of its electors to the presidential candidate who wins the most popular votes statewide, but awards remaining electors to the winner in each of its two congressional districts.

Prodded by the Fairness Project, the North Carolina House and the Connecticut House have both adopted laws similar to Maine’s. Proponents expect the Democrat-controlled Senates in both states to follow suit, perhaps this week in Connecticut.

The district system of selection would give Democrats the benefit of pockets of strength, particularly in black areas in the South, where their statewide vote totals have lagged far behind Republican returns.

Fairness Project leaders see the South as particularly fertile ground for winning a change in the rules, because Democrats control legislatures in all 13 Southern states, as well as seven of the governorships.

If their system had been in effect nationwide in 1988, Democratic nominee Michael S. Dukakis would have received at least 155 electoral votes--43 more than his actual total but far short of the 270 needed for victory, according to George (Skip) Roberts, organizer of the Fairness Project.

But backers of the change argue that it would have broader impact because it would force both parties to change campaign strategies.

“Instead of pulling out of a state early in the fall when they were behind, the Democrats would stay in the congressional districts where they had strength,” contended Chris Scott, president of the North Carolina AFL-CIO and a Fairness Project leader.

By this reasoning, Republicans also would be forced to compete in those areas, instead of deploying the bulk of their resources in battleground states with many electoral votes, such as California and Illinois.

By Scott’s calculations, if the system had been in effect nationwide, Dukakis could have gained 40 to 50 delegates out of the South’s 155, compared with his actual total of zero. He also believes Dukakis would have been able to win more electoral votes in battleground states.

Moreover, the higher stakes at the congressional level would lead both sides to reduce their current dependence on media barrages which bear much of the blame for the nasty and superficial aspects of presidential contests, backers of the change claim. Instead, campaigns would see a revival of such almost-forgotten tactics as doorbell ringing and public rallies.

“I think it’s going to change the face of American politics,” said Curtis Gans, director of the nonpartisan Committee for the Study of the American Electorate. “It will shift the emphasis in campaigning back to the grass roots.”

Civic betterment is the theme as the Fairness Project seeks to broaden its support beyond party boundaries. “We are doing this outside the (Democratic) party structure for two reasons,” a Fairness Project tip sheet advised Southern backers. “It is a ‘good government’ project and it is not the most effective argument to lobby . . . that the national Democratic Party wants you to do this.”

So far Republicans have scoffed at the Fairness Project effort. “The Democrats can’t win with an issue so they’ve got to come up with a gimmick,” said Benjamin Ginsberg, chief counsel of the Republican National Committee.

But as Ginsberg acknowledged, if such a change were implemented, it could cut both ways. Under the district elector plan, Ginsberg said, Republican Richard M. Nixon would have won the 1960 election he lost by a hair’s breadth to Democrat John F. Kennedy.