Why the Electoral College Is Bad for America

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
George C. Edwards
Keyword(s):  
Presidential Elections ◽  
Electoral College ◽  
American Democracy ◽  
Electoral Process ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Core ◽  
Unique System ◽  
2016 Election ◽  
Core Questions ◽  
The U.S

This is the third edition of the definitive book on the unique system by which Americans choose a presidents, and why that system should be changed. It is a critique of the U.S. electoral college and includes a new chapter focusing on the 2016 election. The book examines the function of the electoral college during the 2016 presidential elections and argues that the electoral college did not work as it should have. The book claims that the electoral college distorted the electoral process and gave the candidates strong incentives to ignore most of the country. It did not guarantee victory to the candidate receiving the most votes, nor ensure national harmony, nor provide the winner a broad coalition and a mandate to govern. The book asserts that there is a need to focus directly and systematically on the core questions surrounding the electoral college and assess whether its role in American democracy is justified.

Raising Questions

2019 ◽  
pp. 1-11
Author(s):  
George C. Edwards
Keyword(s):  
Presidential Elections ◽  
Electoral College ◽  
Small States ◽  
American Democracy ◽  
Electoral Process ◽  
Partisan Polarization ◽  
The Core ◽  
Entire Country ◽  
Core Questions

This chapter examines the function of the electoral college during the controversial 2016 presidential elections. It argues that the electoral college did not work at all as its defenders said it would. Instead of encouraging candidates to take their cases to the entire country and pay special attention to small states, it distorted the electoral process and gave the candidates strong incentives to ignore most of the country, especially the smallest states. It did not guarantee victory to the candidate receiving the most votes. It did not ensure national harmony, and it did not provide the winner a broad coalition and a mandate to govern. Moreover, the electoral college did not preclude extreme partisan polarization. As such, the chapter asserts that there is a need to focus directly and systematically on the core questions surrounding the electoral college and assess whether it warrants a role in American democracy.

The Third Troll Prerequisite, Part 1

Cyberwar ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 91-104
Author(s):  
Kathleen Hall Jamieson
Keyword(s):  
Electoral College ◽  
The Third ◽  
Evangelical Protestants ◽  
The U.S

Chapter 5 examines the third prerequisite for Russian stolen or generated content to influence the U.S. election: did it address the interests of vital constituencies whose mobilization or demobilization was critical to a Trump Electoral College victory? The chapter details how troll messaging and the release of hacked content aimed to influence two key traditional Republican voting blocs that Trump needed in order to win: white Christians and veterans. Jamieson explores the trolls’ appeals to evangelical Protestants and conservative Catholics, including the use of a hacked exchange involving a Clinton communications director. In a similar fashion, the chapter shows how the trolls worked to mobilize veterans by attacking Clinton’s record on military affairs.

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.

Voters’ Perceptions of Trust in 2016 Presidential Candidates, Clinton and Trump: Exploring the Election’s Outcome

2017 ◽  
Vol 63 (7) ◽  
pp. 856-887 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pamela S. Shockley-Zalabak ◽  
Sherwyn P. Morreale ◽  
Carmen Stavrositu
Keyword(s):  
National Security ◽  
Electoral College ◽  
Hillary Clinton ◽  
Popular Vote ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Presidential Candidates ◽  
The Third ◽  
General Trust ◽  
Registered Voters ◽  
The U.S

This study explored voters’ perceptions of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump regarding their general trust in the two 2016 presidential candidates, voters’ demographics, five underlying drivers of trust, and important campaign issues. The study also examined how perceptions of trust on issues were evidenced in the popular vote and in key swing states and the Electoral College. The study used two online census-representative surveys to examine registered voters’ perceptions: one survey of 1,500 respondents conducted immediately before the first presidential debate (September 7-15, 2016) and a second survey of a different sample of 1,500 immediately after the third debate (October 20-31), 2016. Analysis of the results confirmed relatively low-trust levels for both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump and an electorate divided demographically about their trust in the two candidates. The five trust drivers yielded statistically significant differences between the candidates. Clinton was evaluated as more competent, concerned, and reliable, and a person with whom participants identified. With the second survey, Trump statistically surpassed Clinton for openness and honesty. Regarding the three issues of most importance in the campaign, Clinton and Trump had equivalent trust evaluations for dealing with the U.S. economy/jobs, but Trump was more trusted regarding terrorism/national security and Clinton was more trusted regarding health care. The overall trust evaluations for Clinton, coupled with intentions to vote, contribute to understanding Clinton’s popular vote victory. However, the importance of terrorism/national security in swing states and Trump’s trust advantage on that issue contributes to understanding the Electoral College vote by comparison with the popular vote.

How Unusual Was 2016? Flipping Counties, Flipping Voters, and the Education–Party Correlation since 1952

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 666-678 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael W. Sances
Keyword(s):  
Presidential Elections ◽  
Electoral College ◽  
Election Result ◽  
Low Education ◽  
2016 Election

Many explanations of the 2016 election result, a seemingly anomalous macrolevel phenomenon, have centered on two seemingly anomalous microlevel phenomena: many counties and citizens who had voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012 flipped and voted for Trump, and low-education whites gave more of their votes to Trump than to Clinton. In this article, I first assess the novelty of these phenomena by placing them in the context of past elections. Compared to past presidential elections, the number of flips in 2016 was not unusually large, even in the Midwestern states. In contrast, the partisan divide by education was the highest ever in 2016. Using a series of counterfactual analyses, I then assess whether these factors were pivotal. If the flipping counties had not flipped, Clinton would have won the electoral college by 3 votes, and if the lowest-educated 20% of counties voted as they did in 2012, she would have won the electoral college by about 30 votes.

The U.S. Presidential Campaign, 2016

2016 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-41
Author(s):  
Michael E. Meagher ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Political Party ◽  
Democratic Party ◽  
Political System ◽  
Presidential Elections ◽  
Presidential Campaign ◽  
Political Regime ◽  
The Political ◽  
2016 Election ◽  
Race And Religion ◽  
The U.S

This essay explores the 2016 election using 1964 for comparison. The central theme is that 1964 set the context for subsequent presidential elections. Issues and public policy revolved around the standards set by the 1964 converting election. Both race and religion played a role in the 1964 converting election that redefined the Democratic Party as the liberal political party for the nation, and the Republican as its conservative counterpart. This established a political regime that endures until the present day, but its endurance has had deleterious consequences for the discussion of new proposals. Change happens slowly and piecemeal. Both parties maintain high levels of spending as politics has been reduced to administration, a technocracy rather than representative democracy. The resulting pressures and frustrations manifest themselves with increasing frequency in the political system. The tumultuous 2016 campaign is the latest manifestation of this dissatisfaction among voters. Given the peculiarities of 2016, are we on the verge of a historic realignment, one that may set a similar standard for a generation?

scholarly journals Three Bizarre Presidential-Election Scenarios: The Perils of Simplism

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (5) ◽  
pp. 134 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard F. Potthoff
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Presidential Election ◽  
Presidential Elections ◽  
Electoral College ◽  
Statistical Sampling ◽  
Popular Vote ◽  
The U.S

The 1968, 2000, and (future) 2024 U.S. presidential elections provide settings for deliberately provocative, offbeat scenarios that might have happened or could happen. Throughout, the Electoral College and plurality voting both receive blame. Scenario 1 exposes a quirk previously unnoticed: Under (albeit special) conditions, certain 1968 Humphrey voters could have made Humphrey rather than Nixon the election victor had they voted strategically for Wallace instead of Humphrey. In Scenario 2, overlooked nonidentifiability of undervotes would have plagued the 2000 Florida recount had the U.S. Supreme Court not halted it, thus raising questions about the foresightfulness of almost everyone involved; but, in addition, Gore missed an opportunity that, through use of proper statistical sampling, could have propelled him to victory. In Scenario 3, National Popular Vote Interstate Compact supporters fail to foresee that even one state, by changing its method for presidential voting, can wreck this innovative and widely promoted compact.

Conclusion

2020 ◽  
pp. 169-178
Author(s):  
Edward B. Foley
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Majority Rule ◽  
Presidential Elections ◽  
The United States ◽  
Party Competition ◽  
Civic Culture ◽  
Electoral College ◽  
American Democracy ◽  
Winner Take All ◽  
Take All

Election College reform should be considered in the context of overall concerns about American democracy. Civic culture is essential, as is strengthening democratic institutions. While the United States must address other institutional weaknesses, including gerrymandering, the power of the presidency requires urgent attention to the current deficiency of the Electoral College. The problem is that plurality winner-take-all permits the kind of accident that occurred in 1844, where the winner is not the candidate preferred by a majority of voters in enough states for an Electoral College majority. Insofar as this kind of accident may have happened again in 2016, recognizing this institutional problem requires a different analysis and solution than if a majority of Americans want to elect a president with anti-democratic tendencies. Currently, there is a mismatch between America’s expectation of two-party competition and the multicandidate reality of contemporary presidential elections. Majority rule is necessary to realign reality and expectations.

scholarly journals The Impact of the Electoral College on the US Presidential Elections

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (02) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nadia Dhia Shkara
Keyword(s):  
Presidential Elections ◽  
The United States ◽  
Electoral College ◽  
American People ◽  
White House ◽  
Unique System ◽  
The Us ◽  
Election System ◽  
The One ◽  
The Impact

This research uses scientific analysis to look at the idea of ​​the "Electoral College" system, the key word in deciding the battle for the American Presidential Elections, in determining the identity of the winner of the presidency of the United States, as it is a unique system of its kind in the world.   The American presidential elections are based on the indirect election system that includes the existence of a circle. An intermediary between the voter and the candidate is that the voters in the American states choose the fifty delegates who make up the electoral college members, and they are the ones who directly elect the president and his deputy on their behalf, and thus the electoral college is the one who decides who will enter the White House and not the American people. The number of members is 538, which is the total number of members of the US Parliament, which brings together the Senate and the House of Representatives.

Reassessing Relationships between Communication Forms and Political Knowledge in Political Campaigns from a Geospatial Perspective: The Case of Local TV News

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yung-I Liu
Keyword(s):  
Survey Data ◽  
Significant Role ◽  
Presidential Elections ◽  
Television News ◽  
Political Knowledge ◽  
Political Campaigns ◽  
Political Discussion ◽  
Tv News ◽  
Cable Television News ◽  
The U.S

<p><a>This study investigates the informing effects of communication in political campaigns from a geospatial perspective. The results from analyzing survey data collected during the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections in the U.S. generally suggest that the main forms of traditional </a>communication, i.e., print newspapers and network and cable television news—but with the exception of local TV news—play a significant role in informing citizens about political campaigns. Political discussion also plays a role in this regard. The implications of the respective roles of a number of news forms in a democracy are discussed.</p>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document