1
Analyzing the Necessity for Electoral College Reform
Matt Froom
University of Wisconsin-Marathon County
Abstract
Since its implementation over 200 years ago the Electoral College has been used by the
United States of America to elect its President. Universal suffrage, the shift towards a two-party
political system, and advances in information technology has rendered this institution obsolete. I
have analyzed several alternative elections methods and have considered the advantages and
disadvantages of each. I selected four alternatives to examine: a general election, an instant runoff election, a proportional voting method, and the congressional district method used by Maine
and Nebraska. Of the different methods I considered as an alternative, an Instant Run-Off Vote
would be most indicative of the will of the voters. The adoption of an alternate election method
may stimulate voter turnout and prompt candidates to consider the whole population in their
campaigning. In addition the change to a direct election system from an indirect method would
eliminate the potential for a candidate to be elected without a majority of the popular vote, as
seen in the 2000 Presidential election.
The Electoral College has been used to elect the President of the United States of
America since March 4, 1789. Since then, the Electoral College has come under various levels of
2
scrutiny, questioning how well it represents the will of the people to its validity in the modern
American political system. The majority Americans are of the opinion that the Electoral College
is unnecessary (Carlson 2). These opponents can be categorized into two groups, abolitionists
and reformists. Those who wish to see the abolishment of the Electoral College think a direct
election would better represent the will of the people (Turley 8a). Reformists see the strengths of
an indirect election and tend towards the notion of adopting a different election method that more
accurately represents the national will while maintaining the inherent strengths that indirect
elections have. The Electoral College has flaws; these flaws have come from both the age of the
institution and drastic changes to the election process. While there are several alternatives to the
current electoral system that may alleviate some of these flaws; an instant run-off election would
provide a succinct alternative.
History of the Electoral College
In order to see the necessity of change, one must first understand how the Electoral
College works and why it was adopted. The Electoral College is formally addressed under
Article II of the United States Constitution, which grants each state a number of electoral votes
equal to the combined number of seats that state holds in the House of Representatives and the
Senate; these votes are then assigned to a candidate by the state legislature. Currently the
Electoral College has a total of 538 votes, 435 for the members of Congress, one vote for each of
the 100 members of the U.S. Senate, and three electoral votes from the District of Columbia.
With this method voters do not cast a vote directly for a candidate; rather the votes are cast for
electors that pledge support for a candidate. Typically the electoral votes are awarded to the
candidate who has the majority of the popular vote in the state to which the electoral votes are
assigned; however, the electors chosen by the state’s legislature maintain the right to cast those
3
electoral votes as they deem necessary. This allows the state government some control over their
electoral vote if they feel the popular vote is not in the best interest to the state’s welfare.
Although the states maintain the right to assign their electoral vote as they see fit, it is a right that
is not often exercised. This caveat to the election process was initially put in place to ensure that
the potentially uninformed votes would not elect the “favorite son” of their home state into office
(Clayton 29). While there is no formal policy in place dictating how the electoral votes are
assigned, most states have adopted a winner-take-all method, granting all the state’s electoral
votes to the candidate that has the plurality of the popular vote. Maine and Nebraska assign votes
based on which candidate holds the plurality in each congressional district and then assigning the
two senatorial votes to the candidate with the highest state-wide popular vote (Pavía 436). The
number of electors each state is granted was designed to assure a state-to-state balance in
representation, this mirroring of electors and the state’s congressional seats maintains the balance
of representation as each state’s number of congressmen is updated via the decennial national
census (The Founder’s Constitution).
A Need for Change
The origin of the Electoral College can be traced to the Constitutional Convention of
1787. It was created as a concession between a direct election and a congressional election. At
that time, a direct election was felt to be potentially harmful to the Nation due to the risk of
uneducated voters electing ill-suited candidates into office; while a congressional vote was
deemed too non-representative of the national will, as citizens would not have a direct impact on
who was elected. The Framers created the Electoral College as a method that they felt allowed
the popular vote to affect the outcome of the election, while minimizing the risk of an unsuitable
candidate being elected (The Founder’s Constitution). With universal suffrage for US citizens,
4
advances in communications, the 24 hour news cycle, and a shift towards urbanization; the
protections against ‘uneducated voters’ inherent to the Electoral College have diminished. Public
opinion over the last fifty years has strongly sided with abandoning the Electoral College for a
direct elect (“Americans”). With almost universal access to candidate and election information
and voting rights shared by all citizens over the age of 18 regardless of race, creed, gender, or
socioeconomic standing, as well as a shared public desire for election reform; the need for
changes to this system are made manifest.
Indirect Elections
While the Electoral College does have its flaws; these flaws are not representative of all
forms of indirect election. Indirect elections have distinct advantages over direct elections and
these advantages manifest themselves in several different ways. One of the greatest strengths is
the neutralization of state-by-state voter turnout discrepancy (Pavía 437). Since each state is
allocated votes based on its population, the actual voter turnout does not affect the weight of that
state’s electoral vote. This ensures states with low voter turnout maintain the same level of
representation for their citizens. Another of these strengths is accountability; with each
constituency polling its own votes it is easier to detect and isolate voter fraud as it is possible to
see trends in individual constituencies and their districts (Pavía 437). Indirect elections also
emphasize the candidates’ need to address the whole population to ensure electoral votes as
opposed to pandering to large population centers which would ensure a popular majority; this
however is not seen with the current electoral process (Pavía 437). While the Electoral College
shares many of these strengths, there are other indirect methods that maintain the same
representation for the people and minimize the chance for a minority President. A proportional
5
election, like the d’Hondt method, would reflect the popular vote more closely and would require
very little reform to the election process.
The most common argument against the Electoral College is the potentiality for either a
plurality or a minority president. Lawyer and political columnist Jonathan Turley uses this
phenomenon as the basis of his argument for abolition. Turley references the 18 elections that
have placed 15 presidents in to office with less than 50% of the popular vote; he considers these
types of results “undemocratic” (8a). 14 of those 18 elections ended with presidents elected by a
plurality of the popular vote, earning the most support from their constituents. In a single
election with more than two candidates running for the same office, the majority of the votes can
be difficult to earn, increasingly so as the pool of candidates grows. In these elections a plurality
is still indicative of the national will. The more concerning aspect of Turley’s argument is the
potentiality for a minority president, a president that is elected without winning the majority or a
plurality of the popular vote. This has occurred four times in U.S. history; most recently in the
2000 election when George W. Bush (47.89% popular vote, 271 electoral votes) beat Al Gore
(48.40% popular vote, 266 electoral votes)(“Historic Election Results”). This occurs primarily
when a non-majority candidate wins high population states by a small margin. For example, in
the 2000 presidential election Gore lost the 25 electoral votes from Florida by a margin of 417
votes (“Historic Elections Results”). In this situation Florida was the deciding factor in the
election; this begs the question “Should a single state have that much power?” The issue of this
imbalance of power among states stems from the winner-take-all system that has been informally
adopted by almost all constituencies in the United States and is a critical flaw with the Electoral
College.
6
The winner-takes-all system most states use has shaped the way candidates campaign in a
negative way. Originally the Framers intended the popular vote to influence the electoral vote;
modern political candidates focus much of their campaigning with that original intent in mind.
The winner-take-all vote assignment that is used in most states allows candidates to focus their
campaigning in major population centers, while ignoring less populous areas. The effect of this is
very apparent in states like Wisconsin (10 electoral votes) where the majority of the population is
located in a small number of large cities, while the rest of the state is sparsely populated by
comparison. In constituencies like Wisconsin, candidates will focus more on major metropolitan
areas and less on the more rural areas. Candidates may also concede states that they deem to be
too deeply vested in a rival, or that do not have enough electoral votes to affect the election in a
meaningful way. With states being conceded and candidates focusing their campaigning on small
sections of “in-play” states, it can be hard to tell what role each state or district will play in an
election. Most recent modern elections are determined by these remaining “in-play”, or swing
states (Begala 12). The swing states are constituencies that have not shown a trend towards either
major candidate in pre-election polls. Often these states become campaigning battlegrounds
drawing the focus of both parties vying for the favor of voters. Paul Begala wrote in Newsweek
postulating that the 2012 election would be determined by the undecided 4% of the combined
population of Virginia, Florida, Ohio, Iowa, New Mexico, and Colorado, a total of 916,643
people (12). While this is a very simple analysis of the effect of swing states it is accurate. This
routine practice of conceding constituencies or population areas creates an unfortunate sense of
abandonment in the voting populace.
7
Possible Alternatives – Indirect Elections
One popular avenue for reformists is a nation-wide switch from the winner-take-all
system to the congressional district method used by Nebraska and Maine (Pavía 437). In this
method a constituency awards one electoral vote to a candidate for each congressional district
they win. The constituency’s two senatorial votes are then assigned to the candidate that has the
highest state-wide popular vote, or in the case of a tie, each candidate is awarded one of the two
votes. While this method may produce results that more closely represent the popular vote, it
also magnifies the principle flaw of the Electoral College by increasing the number of
constituencies from 51 to 435 (Pavía 438). Pavía postulates that 2/3 of the population currently
live in “non-in-play” states under the current system, and that switching to a district system
would place 7/8 of the population in “non-in-play” districts (438). Adopting this method would
also require increased scrutiny of gerrymandering, the act of reassigning districts’ boundaries to
increase support for one candidate over another; this increased scrutiny would be beneficial to
the political environment but would cost taxpayer money, and mandates would need to be set to
determine when district boundaries would be redrawn and by whom. Currently redistricting is
done by the state legislation, to minimize gerrymandering a third party would be required to
redraw district lines to ensure equal representation. The increasing trend of urbanization would
make this redistricting difficult to schedule, and will create large, sparsely populated districts in
most constituencies, or small, densely populated districts.. This method would also give smaller
constituencies more weight in an election. Since the majority winner of a State’s popular vote
earns that State’s senatorial votes, each state with only one congressional vote would be worth
three electoral votes to the winning candidate. While this seems similar to how electoral votes
are assigned via the winner-take-all system more emphasis will be placed on smaller states. For
8
example a candidate has enough campaign funds to guarantee winning three districts. That
candidate is expecting to win 25 of California’s 53 congressional districts and holds 47% of the
popular vote (for the sake of the example we can assume those three districts will ensure a
popular majority), however he will gain more benefit by spending those campaign funds to win
the one congressional district in Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho. In this example winning three
additional districts in California nets him five electoral votes, but winning the one district in
Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho will net him nine electoral votes, three total congressional votes
and six total senate votes. In contrast in the winner-take-all system the campaign funds to ensure
a popular majority in California would be worth 55 votes, compared to the nine total votes from
Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho. With this shift in the vote weight in smaller states it is more
beneficial, and most likely easier, for a candidate to win three or four small states, and ignore
larger states. This method will affect how candidates will approach voters in each state
differently. Due to the nature of district boundaries, candidates campaigning in large states may
find it more beneficial to focus their campaign on numerous low population districts and concede
the more densely populated ones. The candidates’ approach to smaller states however would
focus on the one or two densely populated areas, and concede the less populous regions. While
more indicative to the national will, this change would still not be ideal, as it exacerbates the
existing problems with the Electoral College.
One of the indirect election methods used currently is the d’Hondt rule. Named for its
creator Victor d’Hondt, the d’Hondt rule assigns votes based on the proportion of the
𝑉
constituency each candidate wins using the formula; Q = 𝑆+1 . Where Q is the d’Hondt quotient
for the candidate, V is candidate’s popular vote, and S is the number of electoral seats, or votes,
they have earned. Electoral votes are awarded one at a time to the candidate whose d’Hondt
9
quotient is higher than each other candidate. For each seat the candidate has earned their quotient
will be lower (“d’Hondt System Explained”). This method will create an electoral result that: is
closer to the national popular vote, is distinct without the need for a run-off, will rarely elect a
minority president, and maintains the integrity and accountability of having constituencies polled
independently of each other. To better illustrate the math behind the d’Hondt method I have
tabulated the results of a three party election with eight electoral seats available and 1,000,000
popular votes cast.
[Table 1]
Candidate A (418,362 popular votes) was awarded four electoral votes, Candidate B
(379,254 popular votes) three electoral votes, while Candidate C (202,384 popular votes) is
awarded one electoral vote. In this example, using the current Electoral College winner-take-all
method would result in Candidate A winning the plurality vote and being awarded all eight seats.
In a direct election, however, there is no majority winner, and a run-off between Candidates A
and B to would be required to determine a majority winner.
One foreseeable drawback to a proportional method is the potentiality for weak local
party drawing votes away from parties that have more constituent support. This can be combated
with the implementation of a vote threshold. These thresholds work by requiring a party or
candidate to achieve a certain percentage of the popular vote in order to be awarded electoral
votes. This threshold can also be applied at both or either the state or national level. A single
national threshold would require a candidate to achieve a certain percent of the nation-wide
popular vote in order to earn electoral votes from a state; whereas under a single state threshold a
candidate that meets or exceeds the threshold for a single state he or she would be eligible to
10
receive electoral votes from that state. A double threshold would require a candidate to meet or
exceed a percent of the national popular vote to be considered eligible to receive electoral votes,
and then earn a percent of a state’s popular vote to receive votes from that state. Thresholds
commonly range from 5% to 10%. The use of thresholds prevents isolated support for weaker
candidates, such as a local denizen running for office, from offsetting the overall electoral vote.
Direct Elections
The most common solution given by abolitionists is to use a direct election to determine
who is elected President. Direct elections are, by definition, the most representative of the
national will; with each vote having equal strength there is little question on who should win an
election. While the promise of concise election results seems very appealing, there are some
drawbacks to a direct election. One main argument is that of plurality vs. majority. As outlined in
Article II of the U.S. Constitution the Electoral College requires a candidate the majority of the
available electoral votes, if there is no majority the delegation from each of the 50 states will be
given one vote, Washington D.C. is given no representation in this vote, to determine who will
be granted the seat of the President. In this case a candidate requires at least 26 of the delegations
votes to be elected, and the vote shall be repeated until a candidate has at least 26 votes. While
rare this has happened twice in the nation’s history (“Historic Election Results”). This rare
exception will also likely elect a President from the same party as the majority of the house,
which calls to question how truly representative this process is. If the Electoral College was to be
abolished and a direct election process adopted, measures would have to be made to ensure a
majority to maintain the integrity of the office of President. The foundation of the U.S.
government laid by the Framers is one of democratic representation. With such a foundation at
the core of our political system the office of President must be earned through a majority of the
11
vote. In order to generate a majority winner in an election with a plurality, a run-off would be
required. This is not the most feasible alternative as American voter turnout is already low, and a
run-off would likely see a further decrease in voter turnout; which could raise concerns of
misrepresentation. In addition, one must ask several questions if a run-off were to be required:
how much time would there be between the primary and the run-off, how would absentee and
early voter ballots be handled, and would candidates be allowed a second round of campaigning?
Possible Alternatives – Direct Election
Instant Run-off Voting (IRV) provides answers to many of these questions. IRV is
explained clearly by Shane D’Aprile in his article “Close only counts in horseshoes and hand
grenades …and instant run-off voting:”
‘Voters rank candidates in order of preference--usually expressing a first, second
and third choice. If none of the candidates receives a majority of first place votes
in the first round of counting, the candidate in last place is eliminated. In the
second counting, voters whose first choice has been eliminated are transferred to
their second choice. The process continues for as many rounds as necessary to
produce a majority winner. It's meant to simulate the traditional two-person runoff, with voters only having to cast one ballot.’ (29)
The IRV method will produce a majority winner without the need for a physical run-off. This
method is used in several states to elect local officials and congressmen, and has been used to
elect the members of the Australian House of Representatives since the early 20th century
(D’Aprile 29). Main detractors to the IRV cite lack of equipment to properly tally ballots, and the
potentially confusing method by which votes are cast as the main downfalls to this system
12
(D’Aprile 30). The lack of equipment can be rectified by adapting current SCANTRON
machines used in many school systems and government offices to read the IRV ballots. While I
agree the process could be alien to some voters, proper education of the system can minimize
confusion; however the education process would require both time and resources. Although the
IRV does alleviate the need for a run-off, I fear it may increase the risk of under-informed voters
skewing election results. Incorrectly filling out the ballot, purposefully under-ranking a qualified
candidate due to their political alignment, or arbitrarily ranking candidates could have a large
impact on the results. While I think an IRV system would be a better choice over both the
Electoral College and a single direct election, the chance of voter apathy negatively affecting
elections and the potentially confusing voting process could make implementing an IRV a long
term process requiring reform in many election policies.
Historical Analysis
To see the effects of several of the different electoral methods mentioned above I have
compiled the results of the 2008 Presidential election using the d’Hondt Proportional rule and the
congressional district method; the instant run-off method was intentionally left out of this
analysis as it would be impossible to accurately estimate how the ballots would be cast. It is
important to bear in mind that this compilation of results is being used to showcase the varying
degrees of accuracy each method has when compared to the original popular vote; had the 2008
election used one of these alternate election methods different campaigning strategies would
have been used likely resulting in a vastly different popular vote. The official results of the 2008
election were as follows: total popular vote 131,032,799, Obama/Biden 69,297,997 popular votes
(52.9%), McCain/Palin 59,597,520 popular votes (45.5%), and the remaining 2,137,282 votes
(1.6%) going to other candidates (“Historical Election Results”). Obama/Biden was awarded 365
13
electoral votes, and McCain/Palin was awarded the remaining 173 (“Historical Election
Results”).
[Table 2]
In all four iterations of the results Obama/Biden received the Presidency; however both
the d’Hondt and Congressional District methods produced percentages of the electoral vote that
more closely resembles the percentages of the popular vote, with the d’Hondt method yielding
the closest results (table 2). While the Congressional District method produced the same end
results and similar electoral vote count as the d’Hondt rule, there are several inconsistencies that
can be seen by looking closer at the individual state results.
[Table 3]
Looking closer at these states, the flaws of the congressional district method can be seen
in varying degrees (table 3). All six states have McCain/Palin winning the larger portion of the
available districts although they did not win the popular vote. This is most noticeable in Florida
and Indiana, where Obama/Biden would have lost electoral votes even after the addition of the
state’s senatorial votes. Ohio produced an even split in electoral vote after the senatorial votes
have been awarded, although the Obama/Biden party had won the state’s popular vote. In the
remaining three states the addition of the senatorial votes resulted in the popular vote winner
taking the majority of the state’s electoral vote. In comparison, the same six states under the
d’Hondt rule showed results closer to the popular vote (table 4.)
[Table 4]
14
Looking at this comparison, in all the states save for Ohio, the popular vote winner took
the majority of the electoral vote in each state due to an odd total number of electoral votes. Ohio
remained an even split between both candidates due to the even number of electoral votes
available and the closeness of the popular vote. In the other five of these select states it is
probable that had the available electoral votes been even the vote would have also been an even
split between both candidates.
Discussion and Conclusion
The Electoral College has performed the duty of electing the president since 1789, in the
span of two and a quarter centuries this nation has seen vast changes to the election process,
amendments changing how the electors vote for candidates, which citizens are allowed to vote,
and a shift from a large pool of candidates to a system dominated by two main parties. The most
recent of these changes was in 1971 when the 25th amendment set the voting age to 18,
effectively granting suffrage to all citizens over the age of 18. I believe the time has come for
another change. The Electoral College was created with the best interest of the people in mind,
however over the last 225 years it has turned the nation in to a battleground every four years,
with candidates waging war for the support of states, not of the individual. James Madison is
quoted from the meeting minutes of the Constitutional Convention “If the amendment be agreed
to the rule of voting will give to the largest State, compared with the smallest, an influence as 4
to 1 only, although the population is as 10 to 1. This surely cannot be unreasonable as the
President is to act for the people not for the States.” (Founder’s Constitution). While this quote
pertains to the process of allotting electors to each state, I feel Mr. Madison’s words embody the
idea that the Framers had when establishing the U.S. Constitution, and what it means to be the
President of the United States. In our current political climate we need to heed these words, and
15
the ideas they represent, and find an electoral system that better represents the will of the people,
not the will of the state. Candidates should be vying for the support of the individual voter, not
just the state in which that voter resides. Such a change cannot be made lightly, as any change
would require Article II of the Constitution to be amended. Ideally a direct election would
produce results that the voters expect, but would require new infrastructure to handle a run-off
vote; or in the case of an instant run-off election, to correctly educate citizens and properly tally
votes. In lieu of abolishing the Electoral College, adopting a proportional method, such as
d’Hondt’s, would require fewer changes to the current policies, and as shown in Table 2, produce
results in concordance to the popular vote. While either alternative would alter the approach to
campaigning as every vote would truly count, it may not fully alleviate the propensity of
candidates to concede regions that typically trend toward the opposition, or to focus their
campaigns on dense population centers. Both of these tactics however stem from the logistics of
running a campaign, and from the inherent cost of advertising. Sadly it is a matter of cost to
benefit ratio. Although I do postulate that such a change would cause a positive change in
candidate outreach since, as I said before, every vote would truly count.
Implementing such changes will take time and resources, as well as a constitutional
amendment; resources and time that would not be ill-invested. Of these viable options I am of a
split opinion. An instant run-off vote would be the most suitable in terms of representation, and
would fix many of the issues a traditional direct election could cause, but would require time to
educate the voting populace and to establish polling machines capable of accurately handling a
more complex ballot. d’Hondt’s method would require a smaller investment of time and funding
due to its similarities to the current Electoral College, and would produce results more akin to the
national popular vote. Given enough time and funding I feel adopting an instant run-off vote
16
would be most beneficial to the nation. If the option for an instant run-off is too infeasible
d’Hondt’s method offers a fair compromise between a national popular vote and the Electoral
College established by the Framers. D’Hondt’s method produces more agreeable results than the
Electoral College and minimizes the chance for a minority president, while maintaining electoral
vote results very similar to the popular vote. Regardless of what new method is adopted, as long
as the forerunners of this change maintain the ideology of our Founding Fathers had that the
President is elected by the people and for the people, I believe that this needed change would be
the first of many steps in the right direction of political reform.
17
References
"Americans Would Swap Electoral College for Popular Vote." Americans Would Swap Electoral
College for Popular Vote. Gallup, Inc., 2011. Web. 27 July 2014.
<http://www.gallup.com/poll/150245/americans-swap-electoral-college-popularvote.aspx>
Begala, Paul. "916.643 Votes For Sale." Newsweek 160.4/5 (2012): 12. Academic Search
Complete. Web. 17 Sept. 2012.
Carlson, Darren K. "Public Flunks Electoral College System." Gallup Poll Tuesday Briefing
(2004): 1-3. Business Source Premier. Web. 25 July 2014.
Clayton, Dewey M. "The Electoral College: An Idea Whose Time Has Come And Gone." Black
Scholar 37.3 (2007): 28-41. Academic Search Complete. Web. 17 Sept. 2012.
“The d'Hondt System Explained“ BBC News BBC News (1999) Web. 18 Nov. 2012.
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/91150.stm>.
D'Aprile, Shane. "Close Only Counts In Horseshoes- And Hand Grenades…And In Instant RunOff Voting." Politics (Campaigns & Elections) 31.4 (2010): 28-32. Academic Search
Complete. Web. 13 Dec. 2012.
Founder's Constitution. U of Chicago, 2000. Web. 13 Dec. 2012. <http://presspubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a2_1_2-3s2.html>.
“Historic Election Results.” Archives.gov. U.S Government. n.d. Web. 17 Sept. 2012.
<http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/historical.html>.
18
Pavía, Jose M. "On Introducing Proportionality In American Presidential Elections: An
Historical Analysis, 1828-2008."Political Quarterly 82.3 (2011): 435-447. Academic
Search Complete. Web. 17 Sept. 2012.
“Presidential Results by Congressional District 2000-08” The Daily KOS. 15 Dec. 2008 Web. 03
Dec. 2012. <http://www.swingstateproject.com/diary/4161/>.
Turley, Jonathan. "End the electoral college." USA Today 9 Oct. 2012: 8a Academic Search
Complete. Web. 18 Oct. 2012.