Seventeen years ago in the 2000
Presidential race, Al Gore won the popular vote by about half million votes but
lost the election to George Bush who had instead won the Electoral College (EC) by a 1 vote margin. Most of us at the time begrudgingly wrote the
election off as a rare anomaly of the quaint old EC approach.
In the 2016 election, Trump handily
won the EC vote (Trump 306, Clinton 232), but he lost the popular vote election
by nearly 3 million votes. This substantial EC vote upset seems a lot less like an anomaly
when coupled with the fact that there have only been 5 total presidential elections
in these past 16 years since the anomaly of the Bush win.
Two times in five different attempts doesn’t really look like an anomaly anymore. In fact, it is beginning to
look a lot more like an emerging trend that needs to be critically examined to determine
if it could actually be a situation that is getting worse.
Simple Beginnings
The
EC exists because the framers of the Constitution believed the insertion of the
EC between the popular vote and actual determination of who would be elected
president would insure that only a qualified person becomes President. They
feared that some unscrupulous conman might be able to manipulate enough of the
citizen voters to get a majority vote that could be headed off by the
reasonable persons hand picked to be in the EC. They did not trust the population to make the
right choice. They also believed the EC
was less likely to be manipulated by foreign governments.
At its inception, the EC was a relatively simple matter tabulated in the table below. In the first Presidential election in 1788, there were only 10 states with 69 EC votes between them. The first official census in 1790 counted roughly 3.7 million citizens, and in the Presidential election in 1792, 15 states shared 132 EC votes between them. Even in this early simpler time, a slight bias was visible in the allocation of EC votes. In high population state like Virginia, the number of citizens per electoral vote was larger (i.e. 32,949) than the number of citizens per electoral vote in low population states like Delaware (i.e. 19,698 citizens per electoral vote).
Electoral College in the Beginning
In the beginning, the integrity of the EC was high (i.e. it could be expected to intervene if trouble was suspected) and the disparity between low population states versus high population states was considered a reasonable hedge to slightly amplify the voice of low population states in the country's democracy.
In the 2016, a presidential candidate perceived by many from both political parties as that very unqualified conman the EC had been created to prevent becoming president was actually elected to the office of president. His election was not the result of the popular vote of the people. He actually lost the popular vote by a substantial margin. He was elected to the presidency as a result of quirks in the way EC votes were awarded in the popular election.
Per the original intention of the EC, the EC members could have corrected this problem by casting their votes for the most qualified and sane candidate, but they merely rubber stamped the bogus popular election assignment of EC votes. The EC failed to do its intended job by not intervening to save the country from this candidate's potential extreme incompetence. This failure forces the two questions, 1) is the EC really useful and 2) is the EC even fair?
At its inception, the EC was a relatively simple matter tabulated in the table below. In the first Presidential election in 1788, there were only 10 states with 69 EC votes between them. The first official census in 1790 counted roughly 3.7 million citizens, and in the Presidential election in 1792, 15 states shared 132 EC votes between them. Even in this early simpler time, a slight bias was visible in the allocation of EC votes. In high population state like Virginia, the number of citizens per electoral vote was larger (i.e. 32,949) than the number of citizens per electoral vote in low population states like Delaware (i.e. 19,698 citizens per electoral vote).
Electoral College in the Beginning
In the beginning, the integrity of the EC was high (i.e. it could be expected to intervene if trouble was suspected) and the disparity between low population states versus high population states was considered a reasonable hedge to slightly amplify the voice of low population states in the country's democracy.
Things Got Complicated
In the 2016, a presidential candidate perceived by many from both political parties as that very unqualified conman the EC had been created to prevent becoming president was actually elected to the office of president. His election was not the result of the popular vote of the people. He actually lost the popular vote by a substantial margin. He was elected to the presidency as a result of quirks in the way EC votes were awarded in the popular election.
Per the original intention of the EC, the EC members could have corrected this problem by casting their votes for the most qualified and sane candidate, but they merely rubber stamped the bogus popular election assignment of EC votes. The EC failed to do its intended job by not intervening to save the country from this candidate's potential extreme incompetence. This failure forces the two questions, 1) is the EC really useful and 2) is the EC even fair?
The EC consists of 538 voting
members who are appointed after every Presidential election. Every state is assigned an EC vote for each representative
in Congress (at least 1) plus one EC vote for each of their two senators so every
state gets at least 3 EC votes. States
with greater population get more EC votes based on census population counts
every ten years, but this assignment does not always end up looking like a fair
assignment of EC votes. These
disparities are highlighted in the table below.
2016 Presidential Election EC Votes
2016 Presidential Election EC Votes
In this table, the four states with
the least population (top four rows) are contrasted with the four states with
the highest population beneath them in the table. Wyoming,
Vermont, North Dakota, and Alaska all get the minimum 3 EC votes, but their populations
don’t warrant the 3 EC votes based on the national average Citizens per EC vote
of 597,432 (derived by dividing the population of the entire country by 538). The 3 EC votes equates to
1,792,296 citizens on the average. In
the case of the least populated state Wyoming, this difference means that every citizen in Wyoming is roughly equivalent to 3 citizens on the national average.
The citizens in the states with the largest
populations get reduced in value.
California’s 55 EC votes shorts the state actual population by more than
6 million. This disparity means that
each citizen in California is only about .83 of a citizen on the national
average. Further when Wyoming citizens are
compared to California citizens, a Wyoming citizen is equivalent to 3.6 California citizens.
The matter of how these citizen equivalences translate into actual votes cast is not so simple to determine. The population counts used to determine EC vote allocation includes all persons living in a state, and many of these persons may not be old enough to vote or are perhaps excluded from voting for example by a felon conviction.
Additionally, not all eligible voters actually vote so the method to translating these citizen disparities into actual votes if very difficult, but it is clear that many citizen's voting preference is lost in the EC maze. In the 2016 election, roughly 2.86 million votes were discounted by the EC process, and the numbers in this table could imply many more votes could be discounted in future elections.
The columns to the right in this table are a purely mathematical attempt to get to a more fair distribution of citizens per EC vote. In these columns, this baseline value for citizens per EC vote is created by dividing the population of the least populated state (Wyoming) by the 3 EC votes that is must be given yielding 195,369. This baseline citizen per vote is then divided into the population of the largest state to see how many EC votes would be required to align with Wyoming's 3 EC votes. In this approach, the most populated state (California) would receive 200 EV votes. Applying this simple math the the rest of the problem generates the other information in these column with a national total of 1645 EC votes. This approach would greatly improve the EC situation, but there are other problems with the EC that make this simple math solution mute.
Another EC voter allocation problem was very apparent in the 2016 election. Most states allocate their EC votes on a winner takes all approach. The three states that actually determined the election were very close races. In Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, a voting block of 13.2 million total voters was decided by 77,744 votes. In the winner takes all approach, the fact that Clinton won 6.57 million of these votes was completely nullified in the final EC vote tally because all these votes did not count toward the actual election of the President.
In contrast, Trump lost California (55 EC votes) by 4.27 million votes, but this 77,744 margin win in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin to claim their 46 EC votes very largely offset this huge lose in California.
The matter of how these citizen equivalences translate into actual votes cast is not so simple to determine. The population counts used to determine EC vote allocation includes all persons living in a state, and many of these persons may not be old enough to vote or are perhaps excluded from voting for example by a felon conviction.
Additionally, not all eligible voters actually vote so the method to translating these citizen disparities into actual votes if very difficult, but it is clear that many citizen's voting preference is lost in the EC maze. In the 2016 election, roughly 2.86 million votes were discounted by the EC process, and the numbers in this table could imply many more votes could be discounted in future elections.
The columns to the right in this table are a purely mathematical attempt to get to a more fair distribution of citizens per EC vote. In these columns, this baseline value for citizens per EC vote is created by dividing the population of the least populated state (Wyoming) by the 3 EC votes that is must be given yielding 195,369. This baseline citizen per vote is then divided into the population of the largest state to see how many EC votes would be required to align with Wyoming's 3 EC votes. In this approach, the most populated state (California) would receive 200 EV votes. Applying this simple math the the rest of the problem generates the other information in these column with a national total of 1645 EC votes. This approach would greatly improve the EC situation, but there are other problems with the EC that make this simple math solution mute.
Winner Takes All
Another EC voter allocation problem was very apparent in the 2016 election. Most states allocate their EC votes on a winner takes all approach. The three states that actually determined the election were very close races. In Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, a voting block of 13.2 million total voters was decided by 77,744 votes. In the winner takes all approach, the fact that Clinton won 6.57 million of these votes was completely nullified in the final EC vote tally because all these votes did not count toward the actual election of the President.
In contrast, Trump lost California (55 EC votes) by 4.27 million votes, but this 77,744 margin win in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin to claim their 46 EC votes very largely offset this huge lose in California.
Narrow Margin in 3 Big States
 |
|||||
Another possible approach to the allocation of EC votes is the assignment of the EC votes aligned with congressional districts. The Republican Party actually recognized this possible advantage after their 2012 presidential defeat and discussed such an implementation. This approach is potentially problematic because the pervasive abusive practice of gerrymandering is commonly used to marginalize opposition voters in the congressional district maps. This insurance to solidify a party's majority in the legislature would also bias the EC votes allocated is presidential elections along gerrymandered congressional districts.
The ploy was generally recognized as yet another of the Republican's attempts to contain and suppress opposition voters and the implementation was not pursued at that time. There are some recent reports that Republicans in Virginia are still considering the implementation of this approach. Clearly, the best interests of the country would not be their primary motivation.
Wyoming (the smallest population) has 1 representative for roughly 586,000 citizens while California's 39.5 million citizens have 53 roughly 1 representative for every 750,000 citizens. Both states each have 2 senators. This situation creates a spread in Wyoming of 1 senator for every 293,00 citizens, but the spread in California is 1 senator for every 19.75 million citizens. This disparity is for a different discussion, but it and the EC problem needed to be considered in the context of the same consideration to amend the Constitution.
The ploy was generally recognized as yet another of the Republican's attempts to contain and suppress opposition voters and the implementation was not pursued at that time. There are some recent reports that Republicans in Virginia are still considering the implementation of this approach. Clearly, the best interests of the country would not be their primary motivation.
Disparity Beyond the EC
The problems associated with the EC impact on US presidential elections is actually the tip of an iceberg to a much bigger problem with representation of majority intent in our governance process. The distribution of EC votes is based on the simple algorithm of EC votes equals number of representatives in the House plus the two Senators that all state are designated to have. This same disparity of big state versus small states is reflected in the way that legislative representation is assignment the states.
Wyoming (the smallest population) has 1 representative for roughly 586,000 citizens while California's 39.5 million citizens have 53 roughly 1 representative for every 750,000 citizens. Both states each have 2 senators. This situation creates a spread in Wyoming of 1 senator for every 293,00 citizens, but the spread in California is 1 senator for every 19.75 million citizens. This disparity is for a different discussion, but it and the EC problem needed to be considered in the context of the same consideration to amend the Constitution.
EC Resolution
There is a very specific reason why
the EC has become such a problem. The
problem arises from the ratio of population to EC votes has become highly
skewed with the country’s extreme increase in population. The 100 fold increase in the population of the country since its inception is the very simple reason that the EC is not only not relevant, it is actually potentially quite harmful as the 2016 presidential election illustrates. The only way to offset this problem is to
dramatically increase the total number of EC votes, but since the EC now only
exists as a rubber stamp of those EC votes assignment from popular vote, it
serves no purpose so why bother.
The only way to really correct the EC problems is to eliminate it from our Presidential election process, and that appears to mean amendment to the Constitution (correct me if I am wrong Constitution scholars). Amendment to the Constitution is a radical procedure, but this EC problem since it has been a problem in 2 of the last 5 presidential elections could very well warrant this extreme and low probability for success effort. Especially with the catastrophic results of this last presidential election.
More details about the EC can be found at FairVote.
More details about the EC can be found at FairVote.
