The EC Doesn’t Work the Way Some People Claim
Part the gazillioneth.
As James Joyner noted the other day, the road to the White House clearly runs through Pennsylvania. This strikes me as an ironic fact given that so many of the defenders of the Electoral College like to talk about how it is supposed to make national politicians pay attention to small states as well as bigger states. Of course, we know that this is empirically not true (as well as we know that the EC does not work as “intended”), but the focus on Pennsylvania is especially illustrative of the nonsense of it all.
First, with just shy of 13 million residents, Pennsylvania is the fifth most populated state. It is decidedly not a “small” state in 2024.
Second, and this is real historical irony, at ratification, Pennsylvania was tied for the second most populated state, making it a quintessential “large” state from a founding POV.
Source: Center for the Study of the American Constitution
So, yet again, the mythology that surrounds the Electoral College is shown to be nonsense.
Agreed. I am curious if either you or Dr. Joyner has an opinion about Sen. Lindsey Graham’s attempts to change how to count Nebraska’s EC votes before the election. He’s apparently behind a push to have NE switch from apportioned to winner take all, which would put another point in Trump’s column.
@Jen: And apparently Democrats in Maine hope to counteract that if and only if the Nebraska effort succeeds. Unfortunately I believe the Republican caucus in Maine has the ability to prevent a special session to change this.
Why did you include a map that is out-of -date on EC counts?
@Franklin:
Maine is out of the picture, the laws in Maine preclude a change taking effect this close to the election. That is not a problem in Nebraska.
This is important, Nebraska’s one additional red vote is the difference between blue PA/WI/MN reaching exactly 270 or not.
@charontwo: Because I needed a graphic for a post and this was in the existing database. I honestly didn’t think about it, although should have, but also don’t think it is especially relevant to the contents of the post.
Still, I mean, you know, free analysis and all that… 😉
I’ve been hearing another myth in lefty spaces that the Electoral College was created to protect slave states, so nonsense mythology is on all sides, probably because everyone is trying to to make sense out of the mythology.
Since no one seems to understand it, maybe I need to start posting somewhere about how we should abolish the Electoral College because we don’t want College Educated Elites deciding who our President is, we want good, hardworking Americans doing that. (Kernel of Truth: I’m willing to bet that the electors are much more likely to have college degrees than the population as a whole — there’s bound to be at least a few from Harvard or Yale we could demonize)
Eh, I’m too lazy.
@Gustopher: That’s brilliant. I love it.
As an aside, my daughter likes to point out that more people voted for Trump in California than in Texas, and the EC makes *them* not matter.
@Steven L. Taylor: Interesting contrast in personalities: Person one questions the motives of using an outdated map. Person two didn’t notice the map was outdated and concluded that it was probably the handiest available on becoming aware of the question.
@Gustopher:
Just for the elephant, I did the math:
As Constitutionally proportioned (in thousands): 1. VA 420, 2. (tie) PA & MA 360, 4. NY 238, 5. MD 218, 6. CN 202, 7. NC 200, 8. SC 150, 9. N J 138, 10 NH 102, 11. GA 90, 12. RI 58, 13. DE 37.
As proportioned with blacks as property, and therefore representing zero citizens:
1. (tie) PA & MA, 3. NY (up one place), 4. CN (up two places), 5. VA (down 4 places[!!!] 420k to 140k, 6. (tie) MD (down one) and NJ (up three), 8. NC (down one), 9. NH (up one),
10. (tie) GA (no change) and SC (down two), 12. RI, and 13. DE (both no change).
All y’all can draw your own conclusions, but for my money, yeah, the EC was created to advantage slave states–especially one particular state in the “some animals are more equal than others” category.
The ECs origins are interesting, but the ECs continued benefit to smaller, rural states became clear very early in our nation’s history, otherwise it would have been gone with the 3/5 nonsense.
I’m a lot more interested in why we do things today than why we started doing them.
OK, Captain Ahab. There are many political processes that were set into motion for a reason. They have not been discarded for a reason. Make a winning argument, one that motivates real change, not just in your own head.
@Jack:
Ok, show your work and name a major one from the contemporaneous notes beyond slavery?
BTW, the links to those arguments arre in that article. But (a) it’s not like you are curious in those arguments, and (b) are interested in actually changing your mind (as your ongoing support of Trump continues to demonstrate your utter commitment to the sunk cost fallacy).
@Matt Bernius: I was going to ask if Jack‘s comment was supposed to mean something, but I decided it was pointless to try to believe that he was trying to say something important. Thank you for having faith in him, however misguided that faith may be.
Keep up the good work. It would be nice to be able to have opposing opinion discussions on something other than the ME. (I’m sure that most of us are tired from lifting and dragging all those goalpost around.)
@Jack:
Because it is arguably a quite strong form of disenfranchisement. If your state voted against your preferred candidate by one vote it is as if you didn’t vote at all. If you vote for Trump in Massachusetts your vote doesn’t count. If you vote for Harris in Montana your vote doesn’t count. If you vote in Pennsylvania and one of them wins by one single vote, your vote doesn’t count.
It disincentives voting in strongly leaning states – seriously, what’s the point if you know your vote won’t matter? Running up the score in one state doesn’t matter. You get the exact same EC benefit as by winning by one vote.
Only swing states actually matter in the outcome. If you live in a handful of states that is actually a toss-up your vote actually matters. Candidates will court you, pretend to be aware of, and responsive to your concerns.
Winner take all by state might be the amongst the worst of all possible systems.
@Jack: +10 for the reference to Moby Dick. Much more original than saying “tilting at windmills”.
And yet, everything else you said is oblique and too clever by half for my taste. The reason the EC has not been discarded is that the small states – which the Constitution gives extra power, not just for Presidential elections, but in the Senate, and these days, in the House as well, like things that way. And they have the power to block it.
Everyone knows this. However, you don’t appear to be willing to say it, probably because it is so obviously self-dealing. Your post lands on those people who are disenfranchised as equivalent to “just lie back and enjoy it”.
There are 30 million people in TX. There are 500,000 in Wyoming (roughly in both cases). TX has 40 electoral votes, Wyoming has 3.
So (30 million/40) is about 750K people per electoral vote. 500K/3 is about 160K people per electoral vote. So, voters in WY have about 4 and a half times the impact on a presidential election as voters in TX. Why should that be the case? Why doesn’t “one person, one vote” apply here? Can you give me a reason other than history? Can you tell me why that makes sense today, in 2024?
Sure, I know why the people of WY like it. Why wouldn’t they enjoy having disproportional power? But what makes this a good way to do things?
As for a “winning argument”, you’ve heard about people that persist on a political issue, maybe for 50ish years, until winning the day? You must be able to think of something like that.
@Gustopher:
The EC is an alliance of small free states (they were ALL rural back then, urbanization isn’t for another hundred years) and large slave states. Slave states had obvious reasons for favoring counting population over voters…
@de stijl:
Btw, a straight up national plebiscite solves almost all that. (You know, like most nations do.)
Your vote should count the same no matter where you live within the effected area.
Your sub-area shouldn’t weight your vote except only for that sub-area.
Yes, I know it would require a constitutional amendment. We’ve done it before, and can do it again. Why is there not a “national plebiscite” constitutional amendment faction movement alive today? What prevents that?
The current system is broken on many levels that could be fixed.
@de stijl:
That’s also why the problem is magnified today, because there are a lot fewer swing states than there used to be. In 2000, for example, there was something like 20 states that were considered battlegrounds–now, it’s down to 7.
The reason most Americans accepted the EC despite its flaws for so long is partly that EC/popular splits have been relatively rare historically; 2000 was the first time in over a hundred years. But another thing is that the states used to show more fluidity from one election to the next; the current era where most states always go overwhelmingly for the same party for decades is somewhat of an anomaly historically. The closest analogue was probably the late 19th century, which itself showed two EC/popular splits (1876 and 1888), and where you begin to see the Democratic takeover of the South and Republican domination elsewhere. Perhaps one reason there wasn’t a push for ending the EC then was that both parties were manipulating the system to consolidate power–the Dems through Jim Crow, the Republicans by getting a bunch of sparsely populated western territories ratified as states.
Today, the main reason it seems impossible to get rid of the EC is that it’s increasingly turned into a partisan issue. Dems can’t do it on their own unless they figure out a way to break the 50-50 logjam in our political system–itself partly a result of a system that’s skewed against them–and gain overwhelming control of Congress and state governments. The alternative is convincing Republicans that ending the EC can be to their benefit, and that just isn’t happening so far.
The EC was a compromise to answer problems of 1770. We are stuck with it because of institutional sclerosis. That’s all. I don’t see why sagebrush should have rights. States’ Rights always struck me as an oxymoron. States don’t have rights; rights are vested in real human beings as the inspirational words of the Declaration of Independence makes clear.
Is there another country that uses an Electoral College type of system? Where winner take all based on states / provinces?
If so, what is their experience like?
@Jack: For someone who holds me in such contempt, why do you seek out my attention?
What’s up with that?
@de stijl: No other country uses this system. Argentina had a somewhat similar system, but as I recall it simply mirrored the popular vote (and they stopped using it in any event).
I have a vague recollection that Finland had something that on paper was similar, but was also quite different (how’s that for a helpful semi-memory!).
I can say without any doubt that no other country on Earth elects is chief executive in a way in which the clear loser of the popular vote could still win the position.
Even in minority governments in the parliamentary systems, some acquiescence of the majority of parliament is needed.
This is truly a case of undeniable American Exceptionalism.
@Jay L Gischer:
Actually, the main reason it hasn’t seen jettisoned is that a) until this century it really served a messenger role with a constant fear of popular vote/electoral vote inversions, and b) it favors ones party and not the other.
I expect that most Democratic-leaning small state would gladly give it up, and R-leaning big states want to keep it.
The variable, despite our national mythology, is partisanship, not state size.
@de stijl:
@Steven L. Taylor:
There were assemblies in the Roman Republic where the vote on laws was by tribe. I’m far from knowledgeable on the matter, and not that certain about it. Members of each tribe would cast their vote, but the tribe’s vote would be what the majority of the tribe chose. I’ve no idea if laws were passed when they won the tribal vote and lost the popular vote, or even whether the popular vote total was tallied at all.
@Steven L. Taylor:
Why is there not a national plebiscite organic movement? I think it makes sense and is worthy of a sustained constitutional amendment worth of effort.
Strikes me as the democratic way to select our President.
(The established parties don’t want it. Especially the Rs.)
I assume it is because neither party really wants it. Rs probably more than Ds. It would upend how parties engage with voters, not as a subset, but as a whole.
If given a national plebiscite rather than our current EC system how would people act? What would differ? How? Why?
@de stijl:
I am just old enough to remember how the Equal Rights Amendment folks got shat upon.
Heather Cox Richardson’s newest newsletter is an exposition about the electoral college – how it developed and its historical effects:
“Richardson“
@Steven L. Taylor: “For someone who holds me in such contempt, why do you seek out my attention?”
Daddy issues.
@Jay L Gischer: “+10 for the reference to Moby Dick. Much more original than saying “tilting at windmills”.”
I’d give him a two at best. After all, Moby Dick references are almost as cliched as Don Quixote. Now if he’d mentioned yearning after the green light at the end of the dock, for instance, we could give him a couple extra points for creative reuse of a standard literary reference.
@de stijl: First, a pedantic correction: a national plebiscite is a vote on a policy or piece of legislation typically initiated by the executive (as opposed to a referendum, typically initiated by the legislature).
You are advocating for a national popular vote for president, which is the international norm by far.
There are and have been movements to make such a change. The most prominent at the moment is the National Popular Vote movement who is seeking a compact amongst the states to assign their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote.
There was also a serious attempt to amend the constitution in the late 60s/early 70s that had widespread public support, but was killed in Congress.
And yes, a national popular vote would be more democratic. The main obstacle at the moment is that Republicans see it as an advantage for them. It may not always be thus, but it clearly is at the moment.
@Steven L. Taylor: I’m inclined to think that the main obstacle is that we only think about this problem once every 4 years and only to the degree that “we” fear the outcome if “our side” loses. That Republicans are advantaged is an important factor, too, but cynicism dictates to never attributing to sinister motives what can be explained by simple inattentiveness.
@just nutha: Inattentiveness is an issue, to be sure. And the assumption by most people that the EC is “normal.”
But after the inversion in 2000 note who wanted to initiate a reform and who didn’t.
Also, see here.
@de stijl:
Yep. And the fact is, all states are purple to varying degrees yet 30% red and 49% red produce identical outcomes in the EC (for most states). Plus, all US citizens should be able to vote in Presidential elections, including those in US territories and abroad.
@Argon:
Even criminals, the retarded and the insane?
Frankly, I don’t think anyone who pays no federal taxes should be able to vote in federal elections.