A Calamitous Compact

2016 ◽  
Vol 49 (04) ◽  
pp. 791-796 ◽  
Author(s):  
Darin DeWitt ◽  
Thomas Schwartz
Keyword(s):  
Presidential Election ◽  
Plurality Rule ◽  
Constitutional Amendment ◽  
Electoral College ◽  
State Law ◽  
Popular Vote ◽  
Election System ◽  
Winner Take All ◽  
Take All ◽  
Do So

ABSTRACTThe National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (joined so far by ten states and DC) would replace the current presidential-election system, based on the electoral college and the winner-take-all rule, with nationwide plurality rule, and it would do so by changes in state law, not a Constitutional amendment. The mischief that would create (especially procedural instability, noncompliant electors, nation-wide recounts, vote manipulation, and narrowed support), the compact’s questionable Constitutionality, the weakness of its defense, and the availability of less calamitous alternatives are reasons enough to reject it.

Electoral College Winner's Advantage

2009 ◽  
Vol 42 (02) ◽  
pp. 353-357 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jack E. Riggs ◽  
Gerald R. Hobbs ◽  
Todd H. Riggs
Keyword(s):  
Presidential Election ◽  
Electoral College ◽  
Popular Vote ◽  
Electoral Vote ◽  
Winner Take All ◽  
Take All ◽  
Margin Of Victory

Compared to the popular vote, the Electoral College magnifies the perception of the winner's margin of victory. In this analysis, a method of quantifying the magnitude of the advantage given to the winner due to the Electoral College's two electoral vote add-on and winner-take-all methodologies is presented. Using the electoral vote distribution that was present in the 2000 U.S. presidential election, we analyzed one million random two-candidate simulated elections. The results show that the net effect of the Electoral College is to give the winning candidate an average 29.45 electoral vote advantage per election due to the winner-take-all methodology. This winner's advantage includes an average 0.42 electoral vote advantage given to the winner per election due to the two electoral vote add-on.

An Exploration of Alternatives

2020 ◽  
pp. 135-154
Author(s):  
Edward B. Foley
Keyword(s):  
Constitutional Amendment ◽  
Electoral College ◽  
Foreseeable Future ◽  
Popular Vote ◽  
Winner Take All ◽  
Take All

A constitutional amendment to replace the Electoral College is not feasible, at least for the foreseeable future. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact plan, as a method of nullifying the Electoral College without a constitutional amendment, is a seriously flawed idea for several reasons, the most significant of which is that it would award the presidency to a plurality winner of the national popular vote. Thus, if there were a three-way split in the popular vote—for example, 43 percent, 42 percent, 15 percent—the compact would award the presidency to the candidate with 43 percent even though 57 percent of the electorate strongly opposed that candidate. The fear that an independent candidate could cause Trump’s re-election even when roughly 60 percent of voters oppose this, because the opposition is split among two (or more) candidates, applies equally to the existing system and the compact. Litigation is unlikely to eliminate plurality winner-take-all. States must act.

The 3/2's Rule in Presidential Campaigning

1974 ◽  
Vol 68 (1) ◽  
pp. 113-134 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven J. Brams ◽  
Morton D. Davis
Keyword(s):  
District Of Columbia ◽  
Electoral College ◽  
Popular Vote ◽  
Presidential Candidates ◽  
Main Effect ◽  
Optimal Allocations ◽  
Presidential Campaigning ◽  
Zero Sum ◽  
Winner Take All ◽  
Take All

The purpose of this article is to assess the effect of the winner-take-all feature of the Electoral College on the allocation of resources by candidates to the states in a presidential campaign. Conceptualizing the campaign as a two-person zero-sum infinite game, it is found that the main effect of this feature is to induce candidates to allocate campaign resources roughly in proportion to the 3/2's power of the electoral votes of each state, which creates a peculiar bias that makes voters living in the largest states as much as three times as attractive campaign targets as voters living in the smallest states. Empirically, it is shown that the 3/2's rule explains quite well the time allocations of presidential and vice-presidential candidates in the 1960, 1964, 1968, and 1972 campaigns; for presidential campaigns in 1976 and 1980, optimal allocations are indicated for all fifty states and the District of Columbia. A comparison with optimal allocations under a system of direct popular-vote election of the president reveals that such a system would be less susceptible to manipulative strategies than the Electoral College as well as being compatible with the egalitarian principle of “one man, one vote.”

The Electoral College Exacerbates the Red–Blue Divide and Disenfranchises Ethnic Minorities

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory D. Webster
Keyword(s):  
Ethnic Minorities ◽  
Electoral College ◽  
Popular Vote ◽  
Voting Power ◽  
Racial And Ethnic Minorities ◽  
Electoral Vote ◽  
College System ◽  
Electoral Power ◽  
Winner Take All ◽  
Take All

Because of increasingly skewed populations among the 50 United States, the Electoral College is increasingly more likely to produce a winner with a minority of the popular vote. Not only has the Electoral College become a less accurate reflection of the popular vote over time, but it also suppresses the voting power of racial and ethnic minorities in U.S. presidential elections. First, as a consequence of the winner-take-all Electoral College system, states with smaller populations are allotted disproportionately high weights, such that their per-capita voting power per electoral vote is substantially greater than that of states with larger populations. For example, in 2004, residents of the least-populous state, Wyoming (164,594 people per electoral vote), had over 3.74 times the electoral power of residents in the most-populous state, California (615,848 people per electoral vote). Second, states with larger populations have a larger percentage of ethnic minorities (r = .43, p = .002). Third, if one controls for population differences, the Whiter a state is, the more electoral votes it receives. Fourth, the Whiter a state is, the more electoral power it has in terms of a lower population-per-electoral-vote ratio (r = -.37, p = .008; r = -.52, p < .001 if outlier Hawaii, with only 23% non-Hispanic/Latino Whites, is excluded). Thus, the red-versus-blue dichotomy engendered by the winner-take-all Electoral College system not only disenfranchises opinion minorities, but also systemically disenfranchises racial and ethnic minorities seeking to stake a claim on the presidential political landscape. [Abstract written August 4, 2020.]

A Feasible Reform

2020 ◽  
pp. 155-168
Author(s):  
Edward B. Foley
Keyword(s):  
New Hampshire ◽  
Majority Rule ◽  
Rust Belt ◽  
Ballot Initiatives ◽  
Popular Vote ◽  
The Past ◽  
The Future ◽  
Winner Take All ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Take All

Each state already has the constitutional power to require that candidates win a majority of the popular vote to receive all of the state’s electoral votes. Each state could adopt the kind of runoff that New Hampshire used in the past, or instant runoff voting. There is no need for a multistate compact. If only two or three states had used runoffs, or instant runoff voting, in 2016—for example, Florida and Michigan, or the three Rust Belt states of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania—and if Clinton had won those runoffs, then she would have been president. In the future, it might be a Republican candidate who prevails in runoffs in pivotal states but would lose using plurality winner-take-all. States with ballot initiatives can use them to require majority rule for appointing electors as long as they leave the specific details to legislation.

The Jeffersonian Electoral College in the Twenty-First Century

2020 ◽  
pp. 110-118
Author(s):  
Edward B. Foley
Keyword(s):  
First Century ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Electoral College ◽  
Rust Belt ◽  
Hillary Clinton ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Jacksonian Era ◽  
2016 Election ◽  
Winner Take All ◽  
Take All

The 2016 election is, at a minimum, problematic from a Jeffersonian perspective, like 1992, and may have been another systemic malfunction, like 2000. Donald Trump received 107 of his 304 electoral votes in states where he won less than 50 percent of the popular vote—failing to achieve the kind of compound majority-of-majorities consistent with the Jeffersonian vision of how the system should work. 2016 illustrates the system’s inability to handle third-party and independent candidates, like Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, an inability caused by the addition of plurality winner-take-all in the Jacksonian era. It is unknowable whether Trump or Hillary Clinton would have won runoffs in the three pivotal Rust Belt states of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. But if Clinton had won runoffs there (and in the states where she was only a plurality winner), then she would have won the Electoral College with an appropriately Jeffersonian majority-of-majorities.

The Jeffersonian Electoral College in the Nineteenth Century

2020 ◽  
pp. 49-88
Author(s):  
Edward B. Foley
Keyword(s):  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
American History ◽  
Majority Rule ◽  
Manifest Destiny ◽  
Electoral College ◽  
Andrew Jackson ◽  
Winner Take All ◽  
Take All

The Jeffersonian Electoral College performed as expected until, after the rise of Andrew Jackson, plurality winner-take-all became the prevailing method among states for appointing electors. Even then, the Jeffersonian Electoral College has usually operated consistently with the compound version of majority rule that the Jeffersonians had in mind. Using a mathematical measure, one can identify which elections clearly comply with the Jeffersonian conception of compound majority rule and which, by contrast, require further analysis to confirm their conformity to majoritarian principles. Undertaking this analysis, only two elections in nineteenth century—1844 and 1884—clearly contravene the Jeffersonian expectation for how the system was supposed to work. Of the two, the so-called accident of 1844 was hugely consequential for the rest of American history: the winner, James Polk, took the nation to war against Mexico in order to expand territory, particularly for slavery, according to his vision of Manifest Destiny.

The 2016 Election: Like 1888 but not 1876 or 2000

2018 ◽  
Vol 52 (1) ◽  
pp. 20-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fabrice Barthélémy ◽  
Mathieu Martin ◽  
Ashley Piggins
Keyword(s):  
House Of Representatives ◽  
Presidential Election ◽  
Presidential Elections ◽  
Anomalous Behavior ◽  
Electoral College ◽  
Popular Vote ◽  
The Us ◽  
2016 Election ◽  
Us Presidential Election ◽  
House Size

ABSTRACTDonald J. Trump won the 2016 US presidential election with fewer popular votes than Hillary R. Clinton. This is the fourth time this has happened, the others being 1876, 1888, and 2000. In earlier work, we analyzed these elections (and others) and showed how the electoral winner can often depend on the size of the US House of Representatives. This work was inspired by Neubauer and Zeitlin (2003, 721–5) in their paper, “Outcomes of Presidential Elections and the House Size.” A sufficiently larger House would have given electoral victories to the popular vote winner in both 1876 and 2000. An exception is the election of 1888. We show that Trump’s victory in 2016 is like Harrison’s in 1888 and unlike Hayes’s in 1876 and Bush’s in 2000. This article updates our previous work to include the 2016 election. It also draws attention to some of the anomalous behavior that can arise under the Electoral College.

scholarly journals Electoral College bias and the 2020 presidential election

2020 ◽  
Vol 117 (45) ◽  
pp. 27940-27944 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert S. Erikson ◽  
Karl Sigman ◽  
Linan Yao
Keyword(s):  
Presidential Election ◽  
Presidential Elections ◽  
Electoral College ◽  
Popular Vote ◽  
The Past ◽  
Electoral Vote ◽  
Republican Candidate

Donald Trump’s 2016 win despite failing to carry the popular vote has raised concern that 2020 would also see a mismatch between the winner of the popular vote and the winner of the Electoral College. This paper shows how to forecast the electoral vote in 2020 taking into account the unknown popular vote and the configuration of state voting in 2016. We note that 2016 was a statistical outlier. The potential Electoral College bias was slimmer in the past and not always favoring the Republican candidate. We show that in past presidential elections, difference among states in their presidential voting is solely a function of the states’ most recent presidential voting (plus new shocks); earlier history does not matter. Based on thousands of simulations, our research suggests that the bias in 2020 probably will favor Trump again but to a lesser degree than in 2016. The range of possible outcomes is sufficiently wide, however, to even include some possibility that Joseph Biden could win in the Electoral College while barely losing the popular vote.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document