ELECTIONS, VOTING SYSTEMS, ELECTORAL REFORM - OLLI - SPRING 2017
The Electoral College
The United States Electoral College is the system that elects the President and Vice President of
the United States every four years. The President and Vice President are not elected directly by
the voters. Instead, they are elected by "electors" who are chosen on a state-by-state basis.
“Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of
Electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the state may be
entitled in the Congress . . .” ---U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1
A majority of Electoral College votes is needed to win. If no candidate has a majority (e.g., if
there is a tie) then the election for president is sent to the House of Representatives where
each state delegation has one vote---in the current apportionment, Alaska’s one representative
has the same vote as California’s 53 representatives collectively. The 26 least populous states,
with around 15% of the U.S. population, could be decisive.
[How the Electoral College works (4:42): https://youtu.be/OUS9mM8Xbbw]
Example, 1800
Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr tied, both with 73 Electoral Votes. The House, on the 26th
ballot and with hard lobbying by Alexander Hamilton for Jefferson over Burr, gave the
Presidency to Jefferson. Four years later Burr killed Hamilton in a duel.
[Hamilton - The Election of 1800, music/lyrics (4:03): https://youtu.be/LnHVFAm0TTk]
The modern Electoral College has 538 electors (each with one vote in the E.C.):
435 (size of House of Representatives) + 100 (size of Senate) + 3 (electoral votes for D.C.; cf.
23rd Amendment, 1961)
Comments:
The Electoral College system is “unusual” --- For every other office in the country we aggregate
the votes for candidates across the entire constituency of the office. It is also unusual in that no
state uses a comparable system to elect its chief executive, nor does any other country.
In the Electoral College system---with “winner take all” rules---those who do not support the
winner in their own state have no further impact on the national outcome.
Example, 1992
Florida: Bush 41% of popular vote, Clinton 39%, Perot 20%
Clinton + Perot 59% Bush got all 25 electoral votes.
California: Clinton 46%, Bush 32.5%, Perot 20.5%
Bush + Perot 53% Clinton got all 54 electoral votes.
Example, three 19th century elections in which the popular vote winner lost the election
-- In 1824, John Quincy Adams lost the popular vote by more than 38, 000 votes to Andrew
Jackson. Jackson also had more electoral votes, but not a majority. The election was decided by
the House of Representatives which, with strong support from Henry Clay, chose Adams. (Clay
was accused of supporting Adams so that he would be made Secretary of State --- the corrupt
bargain of 1824.)
-- In 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes lost the popular vote by more than 250,000 to Samuel J. Tilden
but beat Tilden in the Electoral College, 185-184.
-- In 1888, Benjamin Harrison lost the popular vote by more than 90,000 to Grover Cleveland
but beat Cleveland in the Electoral College, 233-168.
Example, 2000 (the popular vote winner lost the election)
Gore:
Bush:
Nader:
PV
50,999,897
50,456,002
c. 2.9m
EV
266
271
0
A few Questions:
-- Does it make sense that a popular vote winner should lose the election?
-- What does this system say about the principle of “One person, one vote”?
-- Does the Electoral College system protect the interests of small states?
-- Does the system suppress voter turnout in some states? Does it affect the way people vote?
-- Is the E.C. system necessary? What is required to abolish it? Could we instead elect
… presidents directly using popular vote? --Would we want to do that?
-- What do you think of the tie-breaking procedure?
[Historical Presidential Elections: http://www.270towin.com/historical-presidential-elections/]
The current electoral vote map: 2012, 2016, 2020
[2012 results are colored in; Obama: 332, Romney 206]
Does electoral vote roughly mirror popular vote?
A candidate in a two person contest could win 100% of the electoral vote with barely over half
of the popular vote.
(In 1980 Reagan won 90.9% of the electoral vote with 50.7% of the popular vote.)
Theoretically (e.g. using 2016 data) a candidate in a two person contest could win in the
electoral college with only 27% of the popular vote:
Example
State
CA
TX
NY
FL
IL
PA
OH
GA
MI
NC
NJ
(2016, data from Cook Political Report)
Electoral Vote
55
38
29
29
20
20
18
16
16
15
14
___
270
Popular Vote
14,181,595
8,969,226
7,710,126
9,420,039
5,336,424
6,115,402
5,496,487
4,092,373
4,799,284
4,741,564
3,874,046
__________
74,736,566
Total popular vote (all states): 136,628,459.
If a candidate were to win each of these 11 states---the 11 most populous---by the smallest
possible margin and get no votes in other states then he/she would have a popular vote of
about 37,368,283 (50% of 74,736,566), which is about 27% of the total popular vote, and would
win the election with 270 electoral votes.
A reality of presidential campaigns is that---especially as the election nears---candidates spend
most of their time and money in states that are in play, in so-called “battleground” or “swing”
states.
Candidates have no reason to pay attention to the issues of concern to voters in states where
the statewide outcome is a foregone conclusion.
Number of 2016 general-election campaign events received by each state:
Example, the 2016 Election
Trump (red): 304 electoral votes
Clinton (blue): 227 electoral votes
(7 votes were cast by “faithless electors”)
Some Popular Vote statistics
Total popular vote: 136,628,459
Trump: 62,979,636 (46.1%)
Clinton: 65,844,610 (48.2%)
Other candidates: 7,804,213 (5.7%)
.....
Non-Trump: 73,648,823 (53.9%)
Non-Clinton: 70,783,849 (51.8%)
.....
Total eligible voters: 231,556,622
Eligible voters who didn’t vote: 94,928,163
c. 27% of eligible voters voted for Trump, c.29% for Clinton
.....
According to media exit polling, 18% of the electorate viewed both candidates negatively; these
voters split 47% to 30% for Trump. So, according to the exit polls, about 8.5% (47% of 18%) of
voters disliked Trump but voted for him; 5.4% disliked Clinton but voted for her.
Example: Geography and the 2016 election
If the Wisconsin-Illinois border were just a bit farther south and the Florida-Alabama border a bit farther
east, then Hillary Clinton would have won the presidency
A tiny change in the map can make a huge difference in the outcome. Moving 3 counties from
one state to a neighboring state swings the election. Geographical instability? Does this
undermine the fairness of the system?
[cf. Redraw the states: http://kevinhayeswilson.com/redraw/]
TWO INTERESTING “REFORM” IDEAS NOT REQUIRING CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
Recall that the Constitution (Article II, Section 1) gives the states exclusive control over
awarding their electoral votes. Both of the following ideas aim, amongst other things, to give
candidates incentive to seek votes in all states.
1. Congressional District Method for allocating a state’s electoral vote
The Congressional District Method allocates one electoral vote to the winner of each
congressional district in the state and two electoral votes to the winner of the state-wide vote.
There are only two states, Maine and Nebraska, that use this method rather than the
traditional “winner-take-all” allocation of all electoral votes to the state-wide winner. The
method has been used in Maine since 1972 and in Nebraska since 1996. On two occasions this
has resulted in a state splitting its electoral vote. In Nebraska in 2008 McCain won the statewide vote and two of the three congressional districts so got four electoral votes; Obama won
the other district and got one electoral vote. In Maine in 2016 Clinton won the state-wide vote
and one of the two districts so got three electoral votes; Trump won one district, good for one
electoral vote.
How would things have worked out in 2016 if all states used this method?
Trump won 230 districts and 30 states so would have had 230 + 2x30 = 290 electoral votes.
Clinton won 205 districts and 20 states and D.C. so would have had 205 + 2x20 +3 =248
electoral votes.
Note that Republicans, with control over more states, have had more control over the
congressional redistricting process, at least partly explaining their winning so many districts.
2. National Popular Vote Initiative
The National Popular Vote (NPV) initiative seeks to ensure that the presidential candidate who
wins the most popular votes nationwide is elected president. When a state passes legislation to
join the National Popular Vote Compact, it pledges that all of that state's electoral votes will be
given to whichever presidential candidate wins the popular vote nationwide. These bills will
take effect only when states with a majority of the electoral votes have passed similar
legislation. States with electoral votes totaling 270 of the 538 electoral votes would have to
pass NPV bills before the compact kicks in and any state's bill could take effect.
The NPV bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions possessing 165 electoral votes—61% of the
270 electoral votes necessary to activate it, including four small jurisdictions (RI, VT, HI, DC),
three medium- size states (MD, MA, WA), and four big states (NJ, IL, NY, CA). The bill has passed
a total of 33 legislative chambers in 22 states—most recently by a bipartisan 40–16 vote in the
Arizona House, a 28–18 vote in the Oklahoma Senate, and a 37–21 vote in the Oregon House. It
is currently (March, 2017) being considered in the Alaska state house.
Each square represents one electoral vote (out of 538).





Green indicates that the National Popular Vote bill has been enacted into law
Orange indicates passage by one legislative chamber
Yellow indicates passage by both legislative chambers (but in different years, and hence not
enacted)
Blue indicates a hearing by at least one legislative committee
Gray indicates no hearing.
Another Idea---But Would Need a Constitutional Amendment
Take the existing Electoral College plan and give 102 additional electoral votes to the candidate
who wins the national popular vote. (102 represents 2 votes for each state + 2 for DC). 84% of
electoral votes would still be determined on a state by state basis. [cf. Robert Schlessinger, US
News and World Report, Dec. 23, 2016]
Comment by Bob Edgar on the Electoral College
“As structured, our Electoral College is deeply flawed, leading to the second-place vote-getter
winning the presidency 4 out of 56 times. Equally important, it leaves most states as bystanders
in the most important election in the world because 48 states give all of the electors to the
state winner, regardless of whether the margin of victory is 500 votes or 5 million.
‘Safe’ states are ignored. Few ads, few visits (except for fund-raising), little get-out-the-vote
effort. In the 2008 election, 98 percent of the money spent on advertising during the final
weeks of the presidential campaign went into just 15 states, according to CNN. With a
nationwide popular vote, every vote would count and count equally — one person, one vote.
What a radical idea.”
---Bob Edgar, President and Chief Executive, Common Cause, Washington, June 20, 2012
Comment by Celia Hunter on the Electoral College
My question is how can we as citizens opt for improvements in the process by which we choose
our leaders?
My No. 1 target is the antiquated and arcane system of our Electoral College machinery. Why
on earth do we maintain this gimmick designed to perform a function during the first elections
of our nation in the 18th century, when everybody could travel no faster than a horse can
gallop, into the 21st century with our instantaneous communications worldwide?
This hoary relic cheats all citizens with its winner-take-all hand over of victory in individual
states, and especially anyone living outside the most populous states. Citizens need to begin
campaigning to make national office subject to the popular vote.
--- Celia Hunter (Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, Nov. 7, 2000)