MAKE YOUR VOTE COUNT!
FIX THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE
By
Jerry Spriggs
MakeYourVoteCount!
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This book has come to fruition through the sage advice and kind support from
many people. My wife, Jane, has patiently listened to my wrestling with the
thoughts and what-if speculations as I slowly derived a better solution with Equal
Voice Voting. She has been a great sounding board, always providing a voice of
reason to make the presentation stronger and easier to comprehend. Friends
have weighed in with supporting voices and gentle nudges to make this book a
reality. I relied heavily on two editors, Tricia Plourd and Louisa Gonyou, to
correct grammar and language use. Erin Flasher and David Lahti helped create
and maintain our website (www.equalvoicevoting.com), making this information
accessible for anyone interested. This book would not have been produced
without the ready reference and data gleaned from Dave Leip’s Atlas of
Presidential Elections data (http://uselectionatlas.org). To all of these I humbly
express my gratitude. Their efforts and energy has truly made all of this fun!
There is NO copyright for this book. I started writing it in 2012 and edited it
frequently since then. IT IS MEANT TO BE SHARED!
Send the link (www.equalvoicevoting.com) to your friends.
It is hoped that this book will be shared with others to spark interest,
conversation and eventual Electoral College reform.
Only by hearing the voice of many will this cause be successful.
June 6, 2016
MakeYourVoteCount!
About The Author
Jerry Spriggs grew up on a farm in North Dakota and has since lived in
Arizona, California, Minnesota and Oregon. Jerry is currently living in the
Portland area with his wife, Jane. He has spent his career as an instructional
designer and corporate trainer. In that role he has designed, developed and
presented training for the military, state government agencies, aeronautical,
financial, automotive, educational, and software technology industries. It’s a
career that actually arose from his hobby of designing and developing board
games covering such subjects as sports, ecology, financial, military and children’s
interests. Jerry’s career and hobby interest has given him an ability to look at
systems and pose the What if? questions that elicit new approaches that embrace
simplicity, fairness, and clarity.
MakeYourVoteCount!
Endorsements
If you think our nation needs the Electoral College to better represent each voter;
continue to be sensitive to the founders’ concerns about geographical
representation; improve voter participation; reduce the out size impact of the
media rushing to judgment; and all-in-all improving America’s democratic
aspirations; then this is a must read. Jerry Spriggs brings his considerable talents
as a self-described geeky mathematician and game creator to a field largely
dominated by political scientists, lawyers, politicians and academics. A fresh
voice, a balanced scientific approach and an easy to understand and short read.
Bravo!
Retired Attorney; served as President of the Oregon Law Institute; Assistant Attorney General,
Oregon Dept. of Justice; Legal Consultant for the University of Oregon's Bureau of
Governmental Research & Service.
This well researched book is a 'must read' for anyone seriously interested in
electoral reform. Jerry Spriggs concisely summarizes the issues surrounding the
Electoral College, suggests a positive way forward and marshals substantial
factual analysis to support his argument.
F. Gerald Brown, PhD, former Director, L.P. Cookingham Institute of Public
Affairs, School of Business and Public Administration, University of MissouriKansas City
MakeYourVoteCount!
Equal Voice Voting Results of 2012
This book presents an approach to reforming the Electoral College such that
every vote (voice) matters on a state-by-state basis, ending the current injustice
of Vote Suppression! Instead of our usual blue and red map depicting the
states won by Democrats or Republicans, respectively, the voting results would be
much more mixed causing the map of states as more purple. The image below
shows the voting results we would have realized if Equal Voice Voting had been
used in every state in 2012. It shows the voting populace of the country is not as
divided as the blue and red maps lead us to believe.
MakeYourVoteCount!
Table of Contents
MakeYourVoteCount!................................................................................................1
FixTheElectoralCollege...............................................................................................1
Introduction.................................................................................................................1
What’supwiththelowvoterturnout?.............................................................................................................4
Whyisitthisway?.....................................................................................................................................................5
WhatshouldourElectoralCollegeaccomplish?...........................................................................................7
Problems&Fairness....................................................................................................8
ElectoralCollegeProblems....................................................................................................................................8
State-by-State...............................................................................................................................................................8
TheNation..................................................................................................................................................................10
TestsofFairness......................................................................................................................................................13
WhyReadThisBook?.................................................................................................15
EqualVoiceVoting.....................................................................................................17
EqualVoiceVotingmakeseveryvotematter!............................................................................................17
TheEVVformula:....................................................................................................................................................19
Example(NorthCarolina2012).......................................................................................................................20
AdjustmentRules....................................................................................................................................................21
ComparingEVVtotheCurrentVotingApproach......................................................................................22
ElectoralVoteVarianceSummaries................................................................................................................24
MediaCoverage.........................................................................................................26
OurElectoralCollege..................................................................................................35
Constitution...............................................................................................................................................................35
12thAmendment......................................................................................................................................................36
ElectoralCollegeHistory......................................................................................................................................37
VotingResults............................................................................................................44
ElectoralCollege......................................................................................................................................................44
EqualVoiceVoting(EVV)....................................................................................................................................48
ForWhomDoWeVote?.......................................................................................................................................50
ThePopularVote.......................................................................................................54
PopularVoteVersusElectoralCollegeResults..........................................................................................54
GeographicLookatthePopulation.................................................................................................................55
PopulationDensityVariances............................................................................................................................58
MakeYourVoteCount!
TheNationalPopularVoteBill...................................................................................68
IsNPVConstitutional?..........................................................................................................................................70
HowdoesNPVaffectswingstates?.................................................................................................................70
Whichstate(s)doavoterecountunderNPV?............................................................................................70
WhatifastatewithdrawsfromtheNPVagreement?.............................................................................71
HowarevotersdisenfranchisedwithNPV?................................................................................................71
WhatwillthemediareportaboutNPVresults?........................................................................................72
WhatwouldhavehappenediftheNationalPopularVotehadbeeninplacein2012withall
Democrat-leaningstates?....................................................................................................................................72
WhatwouldhavehappenediftheNationalPopularVotehadbeeninplacein2012witha
mixofDemocratandRepublican-leaningstates?.....................................................................................73
WhatDoNPVProponentsArgue?....................................................................................................................74
NPVResults................................................................................................................................................................78
CongressionalDistrictVoting.....................................................................................79
Oregon’sfifthCongressionalDistrict..............................................................................................................85
EqualVoiceVotingAdvantages..................................................................................86
BetterRepresentation...........................................................................................................................................86
ElectionStories........................................................................................................................................................87
2012PresidentialElectionMapReview:......................................................................................................87
Thingstoconsider:.................................................................................................................................................88
EqualVoiceResults................................................................................................................................................93
What’sFair?...............................................................................................................................................................93
WhatWeCanDo!......................................................................................................94
State-by-StateReform...........................................................................................................................................95
ConstitutionalAmendment.................................................................................................................................99
AppendixA–PopularVote&ElectoralCollegeResults................................................1
AppendixB–CityVoting..............................................................................................1
AppendixC–GerrymanderedDistricts.........................................................................1
AppendixD–EqualVoiceVotingResults.....................................................................1
AppendixE–Maps&DataofPastElections................................................................1
AppendixF–Resources...............................................................................................1
MakeYourVoteCount!
Table of Tables
Table2:2012ElectoralVoteComparisons..................................................................22
Table3:VariancesofElectoralVoteswonusingthecurrentElectoralCollegeapproach
ComparedtoPopularVotes.......................................................................................24
Table4:VariancesofElectoralVoteswonusingEVVComparedtoPopularVotes......25
Table5:ExampleVoteCountRates............................................................................27
Table6:NewHampshireExampleVoteCountRates..................................................29
Table7:AlabamaExampleVoteCountRates.............................................................30
Table8:ColoradoExampleVoteCountRates.............................................................31
Table9:WashingtonExampleVoteCountRates........................................................32
Table10:ExampleStatesVoteCountSummary.........................................................34
Table11:StatePopulations........................................................................................57
Table12:PopulationDensitybyAlphabeticalOrder...................................................59
Table13:PopulationDensitybyRank........................................................................60
Table14:Maine&NebraskaVoting1980-2012..........................................................82
Table15:2012ExampleElectionResults....................................................................89
Table16:StatePresidentialElectionTrends(AlabamathroughMississippi)...............97
Table17:StatePresidentialElectionTrends(MissourithroughWyoming).................98
TableE-2:2004ExampleElectionResults................................................................E-6
TableE-3:2000ExampleElectionResults................................................................E-9
TableE-4:1996ExampleElectionResults..............................................................E-12
TableE-5:1992ExampleElectionResults..............................................................E-15
TableE-6:1988ExampleElectionResults..............................................................E-18
TableE-7:1984ExampleElectionResults..............................................................E-21
TableE-8:1980ExampleElectionResults..............................................................E-24
MakeYourVoteCount!
Table of Graphs
Graph1:2012EVV,Popular&ElectoralVotes...........................................................23
Graph2:2012VoteComparisonGraph......................................................................46
Graph3:2012ElectoralVoteandEVVComparisonGraph..........................................49
Graph4:2012VoteComparisonGraph......................................................................54
Graph5:2012Maine&NebraskaVoting....................................................................80
Graph6:1980–2008MaineVoting...........................................................................81
Graph7:1980–2008NebraskaVoting......................................................................81
Graph9:2012StateVotingbyParty..........................................................................91
Graph10:2012StateVotingbyPartyGraph3...........................................................92
GraphA-2:2008Popular&ElectoralVotingGraph.................................................A-3
GraphA-3:2004Popular&ElectoralVotingGraph................................................A-4
GraphA-4:2000Popular&ElectoralVotingGraph.................................................A-5
GraphA-5:1996Popular&ElectoralVotingGraph.................................................A-6
GraphA-6:1992Popular&ElectoralVotingGraph.................................................A-7
GraphA-7:1988Popular&ElectoralVotingGraph.................................................A-8
GraphA-8:1984Popular&ElectoralVotingGraph.................................................A-9
GraphA-9:1980Popular&ElectoralVotingGraph...............................................A-10
GraphB-2:2012CityVoting....................................................................................B-2
GraphB-3:2012CityVoting....................................................................................B-3
GraphB-4:2012CityVoting....................................................................................B-4
GraphB-5:2012CityVoting....................................................................................B-5
GraphD-2:2008EVV,Popular&ElectoralVote......................................................D-3
GraphD-3:2004EVV,Popular&ElectoralVote......................................................D-4
GraphD-4:2000EVV,Popular&ElectoralVote......................................................D-5
GraphD-5:1996EVV,Popular&ElectoralVote......................................................D-6
GraphD-6:1992EVV,Popular&ElectoralVote......................................................D-7
GraphD-7:1988EVV,Popular&ElectoralVote......................................................D-8
GraphD-8:1984EVV,Popular&ElectoralVote......................................................D-9
MakeYourVoteCount!
GraphE-2:2004SelectedStateVoting.....................................................................E-5
GraphE-4:1996SelectedStateVoting...................................................................E-11
GraphE-5:1992SelectedStateVoting...................................................................E-14
GraphE-7:1984SelectedStateVoting...................................................................E-20
GraphE-8:1980SelectedStateVoting...................................................................E-23
MakeYourVoteCount!
Table of Figures
Figure1:ElectoralCollegeDecision..............................................................................6
Figure2:HouseofRepresentativeDepiction..............................................................17
Figure3:SenateDepiction.........................................................................................18
Figure4:1984ElectoralVoteMap..............................................................................41
Figure5:2000ElectoralVoteMap..............................................................................42
Figure6:PopulationDensityMap..............................................................................56
Figure7:UnitedStatesOutline..................................................................................61
Figure8:GerrymanderCartoon..................................................................................83
Figure9:Oregon’sCongressionalDistrict#5...............................................................85
Figure10:2012PresidentialElectionMap..................................................................88
Figure11:2012EqualVoiceVotingMap....................................................................93
Figure12:10ElectionPartyChanges..........................................................................96
FigureC-1:AlabamaCongressionalDistrict#4........................................................C-1
FigureC-2:AlabamaCongressionalDistrict#6........................................................C-2
FigureC-3:ArizonaCongressionalDistrict#4..........................................................C-3
FigureC-4:ConnecticutCongressionalDistrict#4...................................................C-4
FigureC-5:FloridaCongressionalDistrict#5...........................................................C-5
FigureC-6:IllinoisCongressionalDistrict#18..........................................................C-6
FigureC-7:MarylandCongressionalDistrict#7.......................................................C-7
FigureC-8:MassachusettsCongressionalDistrict#4...............................................C-8
FigureC-9:MichiganCongressionalDistrict#5........................................................C-9
FigureC-10:NewJerseyCongressionalDistrict#5.................................................C-10
FigureC-11:NewMexicoCongressionalDistrict#1................................................C-11
FigureC-12:NorthCarolinaCongressionalDistrict#1............................................C-12
FigureC-13:Ohio’sCongressionalDistrict#6.........................................................C-13
FigureC-14:PennsylvaniaCongressionalDistrict#10.............................................C-14
FigureC-15:PennsylvaniaCongressionalDistrict#11.............................................C-15
FigureC-16:TennesseeCongressionalDistrict#3...................................................C-16
FigureC-17:TennesseeCongressionalDistrict#4...................................................C-17
FigureC-18:TexasCongressionalDistrict#28........................................................C-18
MakeYourVoteCount!
FigureC-19:WestVirginiaCongressionalDistrict#2..............................................C-19
FigureC-20:WisconsinCongressionalDistrict#3...................................................C-20
FigureE-1:2008ElectoralVoteMap........................................................................E-1
FigureE-2:2004ElectoralVoteMap........................................................................E-4
FigureE-3:2000ElectoralVoteMap........................................................................E-7
FigureE-4:1996ElectoralVoteMap......................................................................E-10
FigureE-5:1992ElectoralVoteMap......................................................................E-13
FigureE-6:1988ElectoralVoteMap......................................................................E-16
FigureE-7:1984ElectoralVoteMap......................................................................E-19
FigureE-8:1980ElectoralVoteMap......................................................................E-22
MakeYourVoteCount!
INTRODUCTION
There is a voting injustice issue that should grab all of our attention when
it comes to the lack of fairness in our presidential voting approach. In fact, you
may have been a victim yourself! It’s called Vote Suppression! As it currently
is implemented, our Electoral College effectively disregards large segments of the
voting populace in every presidential election. For example, in the 2012
presidential election, 56,431,932 votes cast did not matter! Their votes were
not reflected in the Electoral College results! Did your vote count? Has your vote
counted in every presidential election in which you cast a ballot?
Your vote during United States presidential elections may not matter!
Further, the votes of your friends and neighbors, whether living nearby or in
another state, may not matter either. Does this concern you?
This book explains why and how we should change the Electoral College. I call
the Electoral College revision outlined in this book Equal Voice Voting (EVV).
EVV provides an equal voice to all voters and equal representation to all viable
presidential candidates, on a state-by-state basis.
Did you know that in the 2012 election, for example, only 33.44% of the
registered voters mattered? The rest either: a) didn’t vote, or b) voted for the
losing candidate in their state. If a voter casts their ballot for a losing candidate in
their state, that vote essentially doesn’t matter! Sadly, every presidential election
suffers the same consequence.
That’s rather disappointing, don’t you think?
Here’s an insight about this book: I use numbers to explain the different
points. If math and statistics are off-putting for you, don’t worry. I won’t ask you
to do any mathematical calculations – no adding, subtracting or dividing – I do
that for you. I’m just illustrating what happens when we dig into the facts a bit by
showing you tables and graphs.
I delved into the presidential election numbers for nine elections, spanning
the years 1980 through 2012. I assessed every state and all candidates during
those years. I then compared those results with what could have happened if my
1
MakeYourVoteCount!
suggested solution, Equal Voice Voting, had been used instead. I’ll discuss Equal
Voice Voting later in the book to show how easy it is to use and the many benefits
it offers.
You may wish to skip a few graphs and tables as you progress through the
book so you can better focus on those that pertain to your state or the state of
your relatives or friends or where you plan to move to next. Also, it makes for
easy reading because the concepts are relatively simple.
It was the 2000 presidential election that first caught my eye, alerting in me a
sense of something being fundamentally wrong about how our Electoral College
system fails to represent so many voters. I remember watching the red and blue
states being displayed on our television news showing that an imbalance exists in
our voting process. Something was, and still is, amiss!
The 2000 presidential election also caught almost everyone’s attention
because the actual voting process was questioned, tested, and failed. A major
concern was in the physical counting of the votes. “Chads” became a household
word and voters’ intent took center stage. It must have seemed ludicrous as other
nations, democratic or not, watched us maneuver around this national tragedy.
Before you jump to the conclusion that I have a solution of how votes should
be physically counted, be aware that I am not addressing the mechanics of vote
capture. Those problems persist and a viable and secure vote counting solution
still needs further attention. A remedy to ensure every vote is accurately counted
remains as largely an unanswered challenge.
The 2012 presidential election had 129,132,140 votes cast. Of those,
56,431,932 votes (43.7%) were NOT represented in the Electoral College when it
came time to tally the final results. Those 56 plus million voters could just as
easily have stayed home, not wasted their time, and done something a little more
productive that day. They were victims of Vote Suppression!
All fifty states and one district (Washington D.C.) use an all-or-nothing
approach when casting their electoral votes. If you live in a state wherein the
majority of voters vote for a different candidate than you do, your vote is not
represented in the Electoral College.
2
MakeYourVoteCount!
Two states use the all-or-nothing approach on a congressional district level.
Votes cast for a losing candidate in those districts are discarded in the sense they
have no impact on the Electoral College results.
Let me show you what I mean about votes not mattering with a simple table
showing the votes that disappeared in 2012 (Leip, 2012).
Table 1: Votes That Did Not Matter in 2012
States
AL
AK
AZ
AR
CA
CO
CT
DE
DC
FL
GA
HI
ID
IL
IN
IA
KS
KY
LA
ME
MD
MA
MI
MN
MS
MO
Votes That % of Votes
Votes That % of Votes
Didn't
That Didn't
States
Didn't
That Didn't
Matter
Matter
Matter
Matter
MT
818,413
39.45%
216,120
44.65%
NE
135,819
45.20%
319,315
40.20%
NV
1,072,905
46.52%
483,545
47.64%
NH
421,724
39.43%
341,411
48.02%
NJ
5,184,262
39.76%
1,523,101
41.78%
NM
1,246,219
48.51%
368,422
47.01%
NY
653,884
41.94%
2,590,054
36.68%
NC
171,306
41.39%
2,234,977
49.61%
ND
26,694
9.09%
134,612
41.68%
OH
4,252,406
50.09%
2,753,201
49.33%
OK
1,821,362
46.70%
443,547
33.23%
OR
128,039
29.45%
818,782
45.76%
PA
235,831
35.91%
2,763,619
48.03%
RI
2,224,662
42.42%
166,372
37.30%
SC
1,203,991
45.87%
892,473
45.44%
SD
759,636
48.01%
153,205
42.11%
TN
467,337
40.29%
996,247
40.52%
TX
710,022
39.51%
3,424,008
42.83%
UT
841,803
42.22%
279,215
27.38%
VT
311,874
43.73%
100,051
33.43%
VA
1,029,483
38.03%
1,882,669
48.84%
WA
1,246,477
39.35%
1,385,710
44.12%
WV
2,175,681
45.90%
252,783
37.70%
WI
1,390,394
47.35%
1,450,449
47.22%
WY
574,838
44.71%
78,099
31.36%
1,274,883
46.24%
Total Votes = 56,431,932 = 43.7% of Votes Cast
These are votes cast for candidates that did not win the majority popular vote
within the state or district in which they were cast. These votes have no
representation in the Electoral College. We must change this all-or-nothing
mentality!
Let’s do a quick review of the 2012 presidential election. Obama won the
popular vote over Romney with a 3.84% margin. That’s fairly close. He won the
Electoral College vote over Romney by a 23.4% margin. That’s a significant
difference. However, only 55.9% of the votes cast had representation in the
Electoral College (72,700,2088 votes). That means that 144,730,013 registered
3
MakeYourVoteCount!
voters (including non-voters) did not participate in the 2012 presidential
election!
There were 217,430,221 eligible voters in 2012. Only 129,132,140 (59.4%)
voted. Since only 59.4% of eligible voters voted in this election, Obama won the
election with only 21.9% of the eligible voters selecting him and being
represented in the Electoral College. It means even fewer eligible voters (11.5%)
chose Romney and were represented in the Electoral College.
•
Eligible Voters in 2012 = 217,430,221
•
Popular Votes = 129,132,140 (59.4% of Eligible Voters)
•
Votes Represented in Electoral College = 72,700,208
•
Votes for Obama Represented in Electoral College = 47,616,722 Votes
(65.5%)
•
Votes for Romney Represented in Electoral College = 25,084,090 Votes
(34.5%)
•
Eligible Voters Represented in Electoral College
P Obama = 21.9%
P Romney = 11.5%
What’s up with the low voter turnout?
Do you care? I doubt many readers of this book could be considered apathetic
about their vote or their voting rights. That’s an assumption on my part, but if
you’re reading this book, you are showing you have an interest in our presidential
elections. When I mentioned that many voters don’t bother to vote, it’s not
simply apathy that’s my central concern. I believe that many have already broken
the code of the Electoral College rules and realized that their vote won’t make a
difference!
If you realize that you’re among the voters within your state who prefer a
candidate who may not win your state’s election, you might question why you
should bother to cast your vote. You probably realize your vote may not matter.
Or, if you are a voter in a state that favors a candidate that you like, you may not
be encouraged to vote because, after all, many of your friends and neighbors will
vote as you would and get your candidate elected. Your vote really isn’t needed.
4
MakeYourVoteCount!
If you are among those who realize how the Electoral College results do not
reflect how registered voters vote, and vote anyway, congratulations! You’re
doing your patriotic duty by participating in the process. Our democracy is
precious and it is made more so when we vote!
Studies have shown that people don’t vote for a variety of reasons, such as:
lack of time, failure to register, don’t like the candidates, sick or disabled,
forgetting, don’t care, or can’t get to the polls.
These studies are interesting but I contend there’s something more sinister
afoot. I believe many of our citizens have come to realize that their vote may not
matter.
For example, voter turnout in my home state of Oregon is among the better in
the nation. In 2012 Oregon’s voter turnout was 63.24%. Actually, that’s a pathetic
turnout but it’s still better than 35 other states. And, to make matters worse, we
have mail-in ballots meaning we get our ballot in the mail and have the luxury of
filling them out in the comfort of our homes over a span of several days. We then
mail the ballot in. Pretty easy, huh? And still we experience a voter turnout that’s
less than 2/3rds of our registered voters. Why?
I have spoken to Republicans in my state (Oregon usually votes Democratic,
by the way) and they say there’s not much use since the Democrats will win
anyway. I’ve spoken to Democrats and they say there’s no big need to vote
because so many Democrats will carry the day! There’s something seriously
wrong with a system that engenders that kind of voting response!
The low voter turnout this nation experiences during presidential elections
may not be because our nation has citizens who are lazy or apathetic or
unpatriotic. It may largely be because those voters realize that their votes simply
won’t matter!
Why is it this way?
A quick look at the intention of what our Founding Fathers wanted when they
set up the Electoral College may help here. I’ll discuss the Electoral College in
more depth later, but many of you might wonder why we have it in the first place.
5
MakeYourVoteCount!
A simple way to look at it is that the Founding Fathers decided to let each
state decide whom they, individually, would choose as their next president. The
states, then, are free to decide how they do so. Well, rather than every state
coming up with their own unique way of doing things, they all decided to do it the
same way, initially.
So, today, we have 51 separate contests (50 states and Washington, D.C.)!
Nebraska and Maine do things a bit differently than the rest but essentially the
results are the same. Each state suffers from all-or-nothing approach. This is
what causes many of our votes to be lost in the process.
It doesn’t have to be this way! Rather than having 51 separate contests, each
state should reflect the voting sentiments of their citizens. The citizens should
have an equal voice within their state when they cast their votes to elect a
president. That blue and red map we see during elections, reflecting Democrats
and Republicans, should be a blend of voices making the map appear more
purple than blue or red.
It would have been better if our Founding Fathers had decided to have the
Electoral College results provided total voter representation rather than 51
separate contests.
51
Contests
Total Voter
Representation
Electoral
College
Figure 1: Electoral College Decision
6
MakeYourVoteCount!
The Electoral College is a process established by our Founding Fathers as a
compromise between electing the president by our nation’s popular vote or by the
members of Congress. The process is noted in Article II of the United States
Constitution. When you consider that voting is a basic right and tenet of our
democratic system, it’s obvious we need to consider why the current system fails
us and what we can do about it.
Another concern surfaces in the midst of this process. The news media plays a
large role as they capture the news. Voters are interviewed as they exit the polls
and trends are quickly reported. The voting on the East coast prevails and voters
on the West coast become reluctant to cast their vote (their voice) as candidates
are declared to be projected winners/losers early in the game before all polls are
closed. Our cherished democracy suffers.
What should our Electoral College accomplish?
First of all, the results from our Electoral College should be that a president is
elected. It does that already. But that’s only the first step and it’s really an easy
step. In fact, almost any process will work. We could drop marbles in cans to
indicate our choices and a winner would be declared. Of course, that would be
terribly messy and open to error and fraud. So we don’t do that. Still, the point is
that picking a winner from any system is not tough to do.
The key issue is that our system – the Electoral College – should not only
identify the winning candidate, it should also be one that reflects how people
vote! Our current approach does not do that! Instead, it suppresses the vote of a
large segment of our citizenry. The Electoral College should reflect how people
vote and also be sensitive to regional concerns and considerations as the citizens
cast their ballots. This book shows how the Electoral College can be reformed to
accomplish these goals.
Further, our voting system should actually encourage people to vote. That is
simply saying that it should be clear that our votes matter! Our Electoral College
should neither allow nor create a Vote Suppression injustice!
7
MakeYourVoteCount!
PROBLEMS & FAIRNESS
Electoral College Problems
The presidential elections have always been intriguing to me. As I watch the
elections, the reporting, and the election maps displayed by the media, many of
the problems I outlined in this book become apparent. Also, fairness is not set at
a high standard, in my opinion.
First of all, as I’ve already pointed out, every state participates in the Electoral
College as a separate contest. This means that every state declares a winner
among their voting citizenry. It’s an all-or-nothing approach. We have 51 separate
contests (including Washington, D.C.) and the sport of it all is fascinating. The
process works! On a national level we declare one of the candidates the winner.
My contention is that the process should roll up the voting results, on a stateby-state basis, so every voter’s choice matters. As I mentioned before, picking a
winning candidate can be done with any system. We need a voting system that
does not disenfranchise the voters in the process and provides a result that
reflects how the nation actually votes.
Let’s consider two scenarios. The following two fictitious examples will serve
to illustrate how our current Electoral College system, used as it is, fails us as a
nation. These are two role-playing examples, so I’m asking you to pretend to be
these people, even if you normally don’t see yourself in these roles or even have a
desire to be in them. Use your imagination!
State-by-State
Imagine a football game at your high school or college. Imagine you’re a
player on the team!
Suppose there’s a big game this coming Saturday – it’s Homecoming! You
know your opponent is a tough team to beat and it’s expected they’ll win.
Everyone on your team has practiced hard. Everyone has learned the plays
and is determined to play their best. Surely, since it’s Homecoming, the home
team will prevail. You and the team and the homecoming crowd are pumped!
8
MakeYourVoteCount!
Imagine that every quarter is grueling. The opponent scores the first
touchdown but your team regroups and fights back and scores as well. Then the
opponent scores again. And so it goes. The defensive teams work hard to control
the pace and it proves to be a grueling duel. The third quarter ends and the game
is now a tie.
The fourth quarter is tense and the defense teams keep the score the same
until the very last minutes. Then the visiting team breaks out and scores a
touchdown. The final score is 22 to 16 in favor of the visiting team. Your team lost
the homecoming game!
Everyone’s pretty sad on the home team. “Better luck next time,” they say.
“Yeah, we’ll work even harder to win before we meet up with them again!” Fans
applaud your effort and reassure you that you all made a valiant effort. The home
crowd is still proud of you.
Then the paper comes out on Sunday. Everyone reads about the game. But
what’s this? The score is reported as being 38 to zero! This is the hometown
paper and they’re reporting that the home team scored nothing!
What do you think your fellow players are saying now? Will they be as willing
to try so hard next time? Will any of your fellow players drop off the team? Will
you inquire as to why the news reported the game’s results as they did? What will
the fans, the hometown crowd, say? What if they all agree with the paper, after all
it is the trusted news? What if you hear comments and rebuke and hear some
wonder how you could have let this important game slip by as you did?
Now compare this game to what happened in Texas in the 2012 Presidential
election. Texas gets 38 electoral votes. All of these were awarded to Romney
(Republican) because of the all-or-nothing approach that Texas uses when
determining their Electoral College results. If Equal Voice Voting had been used,
Romney would have won 22 votes and Obama would have won 16, the same as
the example game above. The loss would have still occurred but the results would
have reflected how voters actually voted.
How do you think the Democrats feel about their votes not counting? Will
they be encouraged to vote next time, knowing that a Republican candidate in
9
MakeYourVoteCount!
Texas usually wins all of the electoral votes? Will Republicans be as eager to vote,
to make their voices heard, if they know that Republicans can easily win the
victory? Will these kinds of results encourage future voter turnout?
If that scenario doesn’t kind of annoy you because you’re Republican and you
rather like having the Republicans win anyway, consider what happens in
California. In the 2012 Presidential election, 55 votes were awarded to Obama.
However, if Equal Voice Voting had been used, he would have won 34 electoral
votes to Romney’s 21!
If Equal Voice Voting had been used in both states, Obama would have won a
total of 50 electoral votes to Romney’s 43. But because of the all-or-nothing
approach in both states, many voters were victims of Vote Suppression!
Is it any wonder that so many voters do not vote in our Presidential elections?
If they know their vote won’t really mean anything, many voters might say, “Why
waste the time?”
Let’s look at the second scenario. Again, use your imagination and put
yourself into the role described.
The Nation
Imagine you’re the CEO of a major national company. Imagine your company
makes widgets and that your widgets are important for manufacturing or for
technology or for science or something that touches the lives of everyone. Your
company is vital for the nation. But there’s a challenge. You’re not the only
company that makes these widgets. Oh no, yours is not a monopoly. There is
another company that makes widgets too. You must compete!
So, as any good CEO does, you want to know the numbers. What, you may
ask, is your company’s market share? That is, how much of the market do you
command? If you know these numbers, you will know not only how well you’re
doing, but also how well your competitors are doing and what opportunities you
might have for future growth.
So you ask your vice presidents to assess their respective territories and get
back to you with accurate assessments. Perhaps you worry a bit about this. Maybe
10
MakeYourVoteCount!
you’ll learn that the competitor is doing better than your company. It can’t be
true, can it? What if your company is inferior? What then?! You want to be
optimistic but you know that caution may be needed.
The reports come in from your vice presidents. The numbers were added up
and you quickly learn that your company dominates the market! Your company
commands 62% of the market compared with your competitor’s 38%. You are so
relieved! You tell the news media of your findings! This is the kind of news on
which you can build future success! You award your people! You spread the story
through advertising and encourage supporters to give testimonials that further
point to your company’s market dominance. You feel good, right? It’s time to
celebrate. You might even be tempted to take greater risks and be less cautious.
Certainly, there’s not much to worry about from your competition, is there?
However, there is an inquisitive reporter who digs deeper into the numbers.
The reporter senses there is a different story to be found. He compares your
numbers with numbers gleaned from a company-wide audit with those gleaned
from an audit made of your competitor. The results? The reporter has found that
the true market share your company has is a mere 3.85% advantage over your
competitor!
Now what do you do? What steps will you take to be competitive in this
market environment? What will you say to your vice presidents who offered up
their false reports earlier? Obviously, they have manipulated the data and
provided fraudulent reports. How will you correct the problem?
What would happen to your company if the true numbers had never surfaced?
How long would your company survive if it continued to make decisions based on
numbers that were so wrong? In today’s competitive market environment, no
company survives if it relies on false reports and inaccurate numbers. It’s a
strategy that will soon ruin the best of widget builders. Yet we rely on such false
reporting every time we have a presidential election.
Consider the Presidential election of 2012. The results of the election were
touted as giving Obama a mandate because, after all, he won almost 62% of the
electoral votes compared with Romney’s 38%. Yet, the popular vote gave Obama
11
MakeYourVoteCount!
a mere 3.85% edge. How is it that the story that was told pointed to the Electoral
College result rather than the popular vote result?
The answer is simply that our Electoral College results are interpreted on an
all-or-nothing basis. Since that approach skews the results, it’s easy for the
winning political party and the media to focus on that difference – calling such a
large Electoral College result difference a mandate. It was not a mandate. It was a
narrow win.
The results from this type of misalignment between the Electoral College
results and the popular vote means some significant errors can be made about
who becomes the president. In our nation’s history, there have been two
instances wherein a candidate won the popular vote but significantly lost the
Electoral College vote. These two are:
•
1888: Grover Cleveland won fewer electoral votes (168) but won the
popular vote. Benjamin Harrison won 233 electoral votes and became our
president that year.
•
2000: Al Gore won fewer electoral votes (255) but won the popular vote.
George Bush won 271 electoral votes and became our president.
Notice how significant the margins were between these two races with the
Electoral College versus the popular vote results. 1888 was 233 electoral votes
versus 168. That’s a 65 electoral vote difference! 2000 was 271 electoral votes
versus 255. That’s a 16 electoral vote difference! And both races identified the
other contender as the popular vote winner!
It should be noted that Rutherford B. Hayes won fewer popular votes than
Samuel Tilden but won the most electoral votes in 1876. However, there was only
one electoral vote difference (185/184) at that election. Still, it points to a serious
discrepancy between the results that should concern everyone.
Our Electoral College can be interpreted so each state provides a proportional
result according to how its population votes. Equal Voice Voting gives everyone
within each state an equal voice. Every viable candidate wins a representative
result (votes) on a state-by-state basis. The story that each political party and the
news media would report if Equal Voice Voting were used would be an accurate
12
MakeYourVoteCount!
one. The results would not be skewed on untrustworthy data. It simply would be
a fair process for everyone.
Tests of Fairness
Board games have always intrigued me and have become a bit of a hobby for
me. I have constructed a number of them and have entertained friends and family
with these creations. A key factor in a successful game is how fair it is. Does
everyone playing have an equal chance at competing and winning? It’s easy to
construct rules that will make a game function, but it is quite another challenge to
ensure that everyone playing gets an equal turn at play and can participate on a
level playing field.
Who wins and who loses the elections was not the test of fairness I sought
when creating this change in the Electoral College. Respect for every party is
vital! The test of success for such an approach rests on two things:
•
All voting voices must be heard – Much of the country’s citizenry suffer
voter apathy because they live in states wherein their respective vote means
little or nothing. This is a Vote Suppression injustice that must be rectified if
we wish to call ourselves a democracy!
•
The voting mechanism must be simple – A voting approach must be
easily understood, easily instituted, and must deliver obvious results. Clarity
is essential.
As you read this book, you’ll probably become aware of three things:
First, I’ve been accused of being a bit of a geek in that I have included lots of
tables and graphs. You don’t have to study each of these. As a convenience to
some readers, I’ve placed most of the graphs and tables in the Appendices so you
can focus on the most recent election (2012) to appreciate the essence of what is
being presented.
Second, it’s a book of facts and figures. I’ll do my best to guide you through
the topics and will show you why I think we should modify the Electoral College
and what results we can expect if Equal Voice voting is used. So, you’ll find this is
rather like a reference book. You may find yourself flipping back-and-forth as you
13
MakeYourVoteCount!
compare years and state results. You may be surprised by what you find. I think
it’s rather fun, but that refers back to my first point – I can be a bit geeky.
Third, the formula for Equal Voice Voting (EVV) is new, but the remaining
data is public record. I’ve relied heavily on data that can be easily viewed via the
Internet, and I refer to those sources. I encourage you to visit these same websites
and do some searching of your own. I have found that voting via our Electoral
College is a topic that has interested many. That is encouraging and, hopefully,
you’ll be a part of the ongoing discussions to help fix the situation.
14
MakeYourVoteCount!
WHY READ THIS BOOK?
This book presents an improvement of the Electoral College approach, which I
refer to as the Equal Voice Voting (EVV) approach. Succinctly, EVV combines the
power of the popular vote while retaining an equal representation for every state.
And, EVV can be enacted on a state-by-state basis without a Constitutional
Amendment. The following is the book’s topical list:
•
Problems and Fairness – The current Electoral College is examined
from the perspective of how it was established and the problems that we
now experience because of those initial decisions. The section also
discusses the tests of fairness used when establishing Equal Voice Voting
(EVV).
•
Equal Voice Voting – The Equal Voice Voting (EVV) approach is
explained. Its simple formula and process demonstrates how every vote
(voice) makes a difference with fair representation. The 2012 presidential
election results are compared to how the EVV approach would modify the
disparities experienced in that election for two example states: North
Carolina and Ohio.
•
Media Coverage with Equal Voice Voting – A discussion is provided
showing a scenario of how our news media would affect the voting results
and low voter turnout if the nation used EVV. A plausible timeline for
reporting the election results is provided showing how electoral votes
would be won on election day.
•
Our Electoral College – This chapter looks at how our current Electoral
College system works. There is a discussion as to why we have such a
system and the mechanics of how the present system functions. Some
concerns over the present Electoral College system are also presented.
•
Voting Results – This chapter shows how electoral votes are currently
allocated for each state. That is followed by a comparison of the popular
vote with the electoral vote allocation for each state. The 2012 presidential
election is presented, in bar graph format, showing how the popular vote
compares with the current Electoral College results. The comparison
points to how poorly the two correlate and that we voters are subjected to
Vote Suppression in our presidential elections. It is suggested that this
failing, when recognized, can become a primary cause for the existing low
voter turnout among our citizenry.
15
MakeYourVoteCount!
•
The Popular Vote – This chapter shows how the popular vote, alone,
fails to represent this country because of the wide variances that exist in
the states’ population densities. Alaska, our largest state, is very sparsely
populated while New Jersey and the Washington D.C. area are heavily
populated. A simple popular vote would heavily favor the more populous
areas, currently favoring Democrats. How our nation’s population is
unevenly spread across our 50 states is illustrated. This points to the fact
that our votes are influenced by the geographic regions in which we live.
The chapter also points out how a simple popular vote strategy would still
do our citizenry a disservice thereby increasing our low voter turnout
challenges.
•
The National Popular Vote Bill – This chapter points to a bill that is
currently wending its way through out state legislatures. It has gained
some favor but is risky and would further disenfranchise voters. It is a
poor fix for a major problem.
•
Congressional District Voting – The focus here is on congressional
districts and how splitting a state’s vote along these lines runs the risk of
manipulation and fraudulent control. Gerrymandering is discussed along
with an example of a district that has been obviously manipulated to
circumvent true representation.
•
Equal Voice Voting Advantages – A summary is presented pointing
out the advantages that can be realized if the nation modifies the Electoral
College and instead uses Equal Voice Voting.
•
What Can We Do? – You really can make a difference in our
presidential elections. You are encouraged to keep the discussion going.
Links to find your senators and representative are provided. It is hoped
you will reach out to them to let them know you are aware of EVV and
favor its adoption. A discussion about initiating a Constitutional
amendment is also provided.
•
Appendices – Presidential elections from 1980 through 2012 (nine in all)
are shown in the same table and graphic formats used in the body of this
book. It shows the results of past elections along with “what if” scenarios
had the EVV election approach been used. Also, more depictions of
gerrymandered districts are provided. Trend data is compiled showing
how states voted, on a political party basis, for the nine elections (19802012).
16
MakeYourVoteCount!
EQUAL VOICE VOTING
Equal Voice Voting (EVV) is a voting approach that leverages the wisdom of
our Founding Fathers and incorporates the popular vote as well as a geographic
representation for our presidential vote allocation.
Equal Voice Voting makes every vote matter!
First, let’s start with an explanation of how we get to our current number of
electoral votes.
An example of our Founding Fathers’ concern put into action is illustrated
(Getty Images, 2013) in how our nation’s Congress is formed. The U.S. Congress
is comprised of two governing chambers: The House of Representatives and the
Senate. We refer to this arrangement as a bicameral congress.
The House of Representatives is populated with representatives from each
state, according to each state’s current population. Each Representative is chosen
by and represents a group of constituents from a state congressional district.
There are 435
representatives, each
represents constituents
from his/her state.
Constituents
Representative
Figure 2: House of Representative Depiction
17
MakeYourVoteCount!
Giving balance to this method of representation, each state is also represented
by two senators, regardless of the size of the state. This mechanism ensures each
state has an equal voice in the United States Senate.
Each state has two senators.
Each state has two senators
Figure 3: Senate Depiction
The Electoral College is comprised of 435 votes, one for every member of the
House of Representatives. One hundred votes are then added to correlate with
the members of the Senate. Three votes are added for Washington’s District of
Columbia for a total electoral vote count of 538 electoral votes. Thus, our
Electoral College has one electoral vote for every national legislator plus three for
Washington, D.C.
Each state is allocated a portion of those votes according to their respective
populations and Senate representation (each state has two Senators). For
example, my home state of Oregon currently has seven electoral votes. Five of
those votes correlate with our five Representatives and two for our Senators.
The following is a description of EVV for allocating electoral votes. It is
designed to give greater representation to everyone across the nation and to every
state. Hopefully, too, it will encourage a more vigorous voting response from our
citizens.
18
MakeYourVoteCount!
The EVV formula:
Determine the Popular Vote Value (PVV)
Step 1. Total the state’s popular votes.
Step 2. Divide by the state’s electoral votes.
Formula to determine Popular Vote Value (PVV):
State%Elec)on’s%Popular%Votes%
State’s%Electoral%Votes%
=%%Popular%Vote%Value%(PPV)%
The result is called the Popular Vote Value (PVV). The PVV is rounded to the
nearest whole number.
For example, Ohio’s popular vote (all ballots for all candidates) in this past
election (2012) was 5,580,822. Dividing that number by 18 (Ohio’s electoral
votes) reduces the result to 310,045.66. That number is rounded to 310,046 as
the PVV.
5,580,822&Popular&Votes&
18&Electoral&Votes&
=&&310,046&(PPV)&
Determine the state’s electoral votes for each candidate.
Formula to determine a candidate’s electoral votes:
Candidate’s*
State*Popular*Votes*
PVV*
=**Electoral*Votes*
Divide the candidate’s popular vote by the Popular Vote Value (PVV). The
result, the candidate’s electoral votes, is rounded to the nearest whole number.
19
MakeYourVoteCount!
For example, Ohio’s popular vote for Obama was 2,827,621. Dividing that
number by 310,046 (PVV) results in 9.12. The number is rounded down to 9
electoral votes. The popular votes for Romney were 2,661,407. This number
divided by 310,046 gives a result of 8.58. This number would be rounded up to
the whole number of 9 for the candidate’s electoral votes.
Obama’s'Popular'Votes'
2,827,621'
=''9'Electoral'Votes'
310,046'(PVV)'
Romney’s)Popular)Votes)
2,661,407)
=))9)Electoral)Votes)
310,046)(PVV))
Instead of 18 electoral votes going to Obama in 2012, he and Romney would
have won nine votes each.
Example (North Carolina 2012)
Step 1. Total the state’s popular votes for the election.
The total state popular vote (all ballots for all candidates) was 4,505,372.
Step 2. Determine the state’s Popular Vote Value (PVV).
Divide the state’s election’s popular votes by its electoral votes. North
Carolina has 15 electoral votes.
4,505,372(Popular(Votes(
15(Electoral(Votes(
=((300,358((PPV)(
Step 3. Determine the state’s electoral votes for each candidate.
Divide the state’s popular vote for each candidate in the current election by
the state’s PVV. Electoral votes are rounded up or down to the nearest Popular
Vote Value.
20
MakeYourVoteCount!
Obama’s'Popular'Votes'
2,178,391'
=''7'Electoral'Votes'
300,358'(PVV)'
Romney’s)Popular)Votes)
2,270,395)
=))8)Electoral)Votes)
300,358)(PVV))
Instead of 15 electoral votes going to Romney in 2012, he would have won
eight electoral votes and Obama would have won seven votes.
Adjustment Rules
Rounding votes up or down to determine EVVs may cause the total to exceed
or fall short of the 538 total electoral votes established by the Electoral College.
The following rules are required to ensure the aggregate total of electoral votes
equals 538 and are correct for each state:
•
A candidate’s popular votes must equal the PVV before rounding can be
used. For example, if the PVV is 250,000 and a candidate’s popular vote
for a state is 150,000, no rounding can occur, even though the typical
rounding rules would round up to equal one electoral vote. That candidate
would receive no electoral votes.
•
Each state’s electoral vote must equal the allotted votes established by the
Electoral College. For example, if a state has 10 electoral votes (such as
Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin) and either fewer or more
electoral votes are won by that state, an adjustment might need to be
made. To make an EVV adjustment, do the following:
P If the electoral vote count for a state is too many (more than what has
been allocated to that state), remove one electoral vote from the
candidate who has won the fewest popular votes in that state.
P If the electoral votes for a state are too few, add one electoral vote to
the candidate who has won the most popular votes in that state.
Note: Typically, this is only a one-vote adjustment for a given state.
However, some rare situations may require two votes to be added or subtracted.
21
MakeYourVoteCount!
Comparing EVV to the Current Voting Approach
You may find it helpful to compare the electoral votes won by the candidates
in the 2012 Presidential election with those that would have been earned by EVV.
Table 2: 2012 Electoral Vote Comparisons
Current Electoral College
States
AL
AK
AZ
AR
CA
CO
CT
DE
DC
FL
GA
HI
ID
IL
IN
IA
KS
KY
LA
ME
MD
MA
MI
MN
MS
MO
MT
NE
NV
NH
NJ
NM
NY
NC
ND
OH
OK
OR
PA
RI
SC
SD
TN
TX
UT
VT
VA
WA
WV
WI
WY
Popular
Vote
2,047,756
212,930
1,957,065
1,034,553
10,083,387
2,388,082
1,528,359
408,023
239,669
8,398,206
3,850,591
427,520
633,089
5,068,712
2,550,020
1,527,469
1,106,637
1,766,492
1,960,563
688,191
2,471,043
3,077,945
4,671,157
2,866,069
1,202,562
2,693,992
465,003
759,470
991,612
710,928
3,271,033
741,954
6,102,463
4,408,468
312,281
5,274,423
1,334,872
1,627,995
5,482,395
436,332
1,923,505
355,557
2,419,019
7,850,239
901,210
291,959
3,783,704
2,741,115
644,462
3,022,695
238,059
Totals
Equal Voice Voting
Obama
PVV
Obama Electoral Romney
Votes
227,528
3.49
3
5.51
70,977
1.29
1
1.71
177,915
4.93
5
6.07
172,426
2.27
2
3.73
183,334
33.37
33
21.63
265,342
4.72
5
4.28
218,337
4.11
4
2.89
136,008
1.78
2
1.22
79,890
2.78
3
0.22
289,593
14.63
15
14.37
240,662
7.37
7
8.63
106,880
2.87
3
1.13
158,272
1.34
1
2.66
253,436
11.70
12
8.30
231,820
4.91
5
6.09
254,578
3.17
3
2.83
184,440
2.32
2
3.68
220,812
3.08
3
4.92
245,070
3.30
3
4.70
172,048
2.31
2
1.69
247,104
6.26
6
3.74
279,813
6.79
7
4.21
291,947
8.77
9
7.23
286,607
5.39
5
4.61
200,427
2.64
3
3.36
269,399
4.51
5
5.49
155,001
1.28
1
1.72
151,894
1.92
2
3.08
165,269
3.20
3
2.80
177,732
2.11
2
1.89
233,645
8.20
8
5.80
148,391
2.76
3
2.24
210,430
18.42
18
10.58
293,898
7.34
7
7.66
104,094
1.20
1
1.80
293,024
9.18
9
8.82
190,696
2.33
2
4.67
232,571
3.92
4
3.08
274,120
10.53
11
9.47
109,083
2.56
3
1.44
213,723
4.01
4
4.99
118,519
1.22
1
1.78
219,911
4.36
4
6.64
206,585
15.95
16
22.05
150,202
1.53
2
4.47
97,320
2.05
3
0.95
291,054
6.75
7
6.25
228,426
6.86
7
5.14
128,892
1.81
2
3.19
302,270
5.34
5
4.66
79,353
0.86
0
2.14
276
274
262
Popular Vote Percentage
51.39%
Equal Voice Vote Percentage
50.93%
Electoral
Votes
9
3
11
6
55
9
7
3
3
29
16
4
4
20
11
6
6
8
8
4
10
11
16
10
6
10
3
5
6
4
14
5
29
15
3
18
7
7
20
4
9
3
11
38
6
3
13
12
5
10
3
538
Romney
Electoral
Votes
6
2
6
4
22
4
3
1
0
14
9
1
3
8
6
3
4
5
5
2
4
4
7
5
3
5
2
3
3
2
6
2
11
8
2
9
5
3
9
1
5
2
7
22
4
0
6
5
3
5
3
264
48.61%
49.07%
The following graph is shown to compare the 2012 election between the
popular votes, electoral votes, and how these same elections would fare under the
Equal Voice Voting approach. The blue bars depict the results for Democrats; the
red bars depict the results for Republicans. More graphs are shown in the
Appendix. Some graphs shown in the Appendix use white bars for third party
candidates, when needed.
22
MakeYourVoteCount!
As you review the graphs, notice how close in height the popular votes (solid
bars) compare to the Equal Voice Votes (vertical striped bars). Compare these
heights with the Electoral College results depicted here with the horizontal
striped bars. Typically, these bars vary significantly from the other two.
The 2012 election shows Obama won by a large margin when considering the
Electoral College votes. Yet his victory was only a 3.8% popular vote margin. The
EVV results for both candidates show a more equal representation.
2012
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
51.1%
51%
Obama % Equal
Voice Vote
Obama %
Popular Vote
61.7%
48.9%
Obama %
Romney % Equal
Electoral Vote
Voice Vote
47.2%
38.3%
Romney %
Popular Vote
Romney %
Electoral Vote
Graph 1: 2012 EVV, Popular & Electoral Votes
Variances between parties
Popular Votes (solid bars) = 51%:47.2% = 3.8%
Electoral Votes (horizontal striped bars) = 61.7%:38.3% = 23.4%
EVV results (vertical striped bars) = 51.1%:48.9% = 2.2%
Variance between EVV results and Popular Votes:
Democrat = 51.1%:51% = 0.1%
Republican = 48.9%:47.2% = 1.7%
23
MakeYourVoteCount!
Electoral Vote Variance Summaries
The tables below display the two major party voting results by showing the
variances between the electoral and popular votes for all nine of the example
elections (1980 – 2012). These variances are compared between the two major
parties. The first table shows the current comparison and the second table shows
the results if the Electoral College had been replaced with EVV during those
presidential election years.
Notice that the two tables employ a different array of percentages. The first
table extends from 0% to 45% (along the left side), while the second table’s array
extends from 0% to 4.5%. The first table shows that the variance of electoral votes
from the popular vote is rather extreme; whereas, the second table shows the
variances are often equal or vary only slightly.
Table 3: Variances of Electoral Votes won using the current Electoral College
approach Compared to Popular Votes
1980
1984
1988
1992
1996
2000
2004
2008
2012
Democrat
32.7%
38.5%
25.3%
25.5%
20.4%
0.8%
1.5%
14.9%
10.3%
24
Republican
39.2%
38.5%
25.3%
6.5%
11.9%
1.8%
2.9%
13.4%
10.3%
MakeYourVoteCount!
Ideally, the variances between popular and the final election results should be
minimal. Notice that the scale used in this graph ranges from 0% to only 4.5%
(compared to 0% to 45% for the current Electoral College approach). The EVV
approach shows the variance remains less than 4.5% for Reagan in the 1980 race
and less than half of that for the other candidates and contests. The current
Electoral College approach, on the other hand, exceeds 10% most of the time.
Table 4: Variances of Electoral Votes won using
EVV Compared to Popular Votes
1980
1984
1988
1992
1996
2000
2004
2008
2012
0.4%
0.4%
0.2%
1.7%
1.6%
0%
0%
0.8%
0.1%
25
4.1%
0.4%
0.2%
1.7%
2.1%
1%
1%
0.7%
1.7%
MakeYourVoteCount!
MEDIA COVERAGE
Another area of concern about our current voting process is how the news
media reports the results. Obviously, there was much confusion over the Florida
results in the 2000 election; but the concern goes further than that. Often, the
Eastern states’ results are reported early in the day (relatively speaking) while
those citizens in the West may not have yet voted. Often a candidate is declared a
winner as a foregone conclusion before the polls are closed in the West,
effectively encouraging the voting citizenry in the more westerly regions of our
country to not vote – forfeiting their right – forfeiting their voice. Essentially, this
process fuels the low voter turnout that undercuts our very democratic process.
The early reporting is not simply a fault of our news media. It’s the media’s
job to keep our populace informed and, on Election Day, voting results are what
everyone is interested in – it’s news. Changing how the news is reported on
Election Day may significantly address the early winner declaration problem.
What if that same media tenacity actually worked to encourage people to
vote? What if early reporting could not spring to an early conclusion? What if the
news gave a running sense of how each region’s voting hung in the balance and
actually encouraged everyone to get out and vote because their vote
mattered?
While not having actual results to point to, I am suggesting that the totaling of
a candidate’s electoral votes using Equal Voice Voting cannot be done early. What
would happen and what would be reported in the news if Equal Voice Voting had
been used across the nation? Let’s use our imagination again and do an exercise
that illustrates a plausible (though purely fictitious) vote reporting process.
26
MakeYourVoteCount!
I have selected four states; one in each time zone, to simulate how voting
tallies for the 2012 election could have played out. Remember, this is a
speculative set of scenarios. However, it points to how time is required for each
state to declare a final tally.
The four time zones and states selected are:
P Eastern Standard Time (EST) New Hampshire
P Central Standard Time (CST) Alabama
P Mountain Standard Time (MST)
Colorado
P Pacific Standard Time (PST) Washington
The popular votes were counted according to their respective counties. I have
made the assumption that voting precincts’ results would be accumulated on a
county-by-county basis. It is understood that vote counting may go rapidly or
slowly, depending on the support and the number of people involved. However, I
assumed that counties with larger populations would count votes faster than
small ones simply because they would have a larger volunteer staff to do the
counting.
For example, I only created four categories of counties: 1 to 10,000 voters,
10,001 to 75,000, 75,001 to 250,000 voters, and counties with 250,001 + voters.
Each county size was further assumed able to count votes at a different rate, as
the table below shows:
Table 5: Example Vote Count Rates
County
# of Votes
Rate of Vote
Size
Captured
Counting per Hour
Small
1-10,000
1,000 Votes
Medium
10,001-75,000
7,500 Votes
Large
75,001-250,000
40,000 Votes
Extra Large
250,000+
80,000 Votes
The table above represents a lot of assumptions, but with these assumptions
in mind, look at how this fictitious vote counting could be done. The key point to
consider is the percentage of votes that must be counted before a final tally can be
certain.
Typically, if a candidate wins or loses a state, it is determined early in the
process, often when less than half of the votes have been counted. In the
27
MakeYourVoteCount!
scenarios provided here, you’ll see that cannot be done. This is because it is not
an all-or-nothing type of voting result. Each candidate wins electoral votes,
causing the assessment to be extended time-wise from the current experience.
The Equal Voice Voting (EVV) approach relies on the Popular Vote Value
(PVV), which is determined using the total number of popular votes cast in a
state. This is an unknown factor while the votes are being gathered and counted.
Therefore, any estimates would probably rely on the voting experience of the
previous presidential election. This approach was used for this simulation. Once
the true popular vote is realized, the factor would be adjusted and revisions made
to the electoral votes won. This kind of adjustment affects both candidates
equally, so the vote tally in the sense of which candidate is ahead or behind will
not change, though the electoral votes might. This situation appeared for
Alabama and Washington and is discussed when those tables are presented.
New Hampshire polls closed at 8:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST). That
is the zero hour in the first table. The remaining three states also close their polls
at 8:00 p.m., relative to their corresponding time zones.
It was also assumed that some vote counting may have occurred in each state
before their polls closed. Therefore, their zero hour tallies show a portion of votes
counted, ranging from 10.6% to 14.49%.
The following four tables depict each state. The first column shows the time
lapse in increments of 30 minutes (half hour). The percentage of votes counted
for each candidate is shown in the second column, on a cumulative basis. The
total cumulative number of electoral votes is then shown in the third and fourth
columns. Third party candidates did not provide significant results to be shown
for this exercise.
28
MakeYourVoteCount!
New Hampshire: This is the smallest of the four states. Assuming that the
vote counting would be slower due to fewer people involved in the process, the
vote count extended into the ninth hour (5:00 am). That may or not be accurate,
but the key point in these results is that the total electoral votes for both
candidates could not be determined until almost 8o% of the vote was counted,
which would be around 11:30 pm on the East coast! The yellow highlight below
shows when both candidates had successfully won their respective electoral votes.
Table 6: New Hampshire Example Vote Count Rates
Hours
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
7.5
8
8.5
9
New Hampshire
Vote %
Electoral Votes
Counted
Obama
Romney
11.64%
0
0
23.17%
0
0
34.70%
0
0
46.23%
1
0
54.95%
1
1
63.21%
1
1
71.47%
2
1
79.73%
2
2
86.36%
2
2
90.99%
2
2
93.37%
2
2
94.74%
2
2
95.99%
2
2
96.90%
2
2
97.81%
2
2
98.31%
2
2
98.77%
2
2
99.22%
2
2
99.68%
2
2
29
MakeYourVoteCount!
Alabama: This state has the most counties of the four states selected. Vote
counting extended into the eighth hour (4:00 am). That may or may not be
accurate, but the key point in these results is that the total electoral votes for both
candidates could not be determined until more than 87% of the vote was counted,
which would be around 11:30 pm in the Central Standard Time zone! The yellow
highlight below shows when both candidates had successfully won their
respective electoral votes.
Table 7: Alabama Example Vote Count Rates
Hours
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
7.5
8
Alabama
Vote %
Electoral Votes
Counted
Obama
Romney
14.49%
0
0
28.99%
0
0
43.48%
1
2
57.19%
2
3
67.90%
2
4
76.22%
3
4
83.17%
3
4
87.68%
3
5
90.96%
3
5
93.38%
3
5
95.40%
3
5
96.71%
3
5
97.91%
3
5
98.75%
3
5
99.38%
3
5
99.81%
3
5
100%
3
5
An adjustment had to be made once all of the voting was completed, noting
that the Popular Vote Value was decreased from the PPV used in the previous
election. This caused Romney to earn one more electoral vote. However, it would
not have become apparent until 2:00 am even if the correct PPV were used!
Again, there is no danger of one candidate exceeding another’s electoral vote
count due to this adjustment.
30
MakeYourVoteCount!
Colorado: Colorado was noted as a swing state in the last election (2012).
The vote count ended around 5 am Mountain Standard Time. Actual vote
counting for this kind of scenario could easily be different, but, again, the key
point in these results is that the total electoral votes for both candidates could not
be determined until most of the votes were counted. In this simulation, more
than 90% of the vote was needed before a final determination could be identified,
which would have been 11:30 pm! The yellow highlight below shows when both
candidates had successfully won their respective electoral votes.
Table 8: Colorado Example Vote Count Rates
Hours
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
7.5
8
8.5
9
Colorado
Vote %
Electoral Votes
Counted
Obama
Romney
14.12%
0
0
28.18%
1
1
42.17%
2
2
55.33%
3
2
66.79%
3
3
77.76%
4
3
86.01%
4
4
90.53%
5
4
94.30%
5
4
95.44%
5
4
96.45%
5
4
97.41%
5
4
98.36%
5
4
99.26%
5
4
99.75%
5
4
99.85%
5
4
99.92%
5
4
99.97%
5
4
100%
5
4
31
MakeYourVoteCount!
Washington: Washington is the most populous state of the four chosen.
Consequently, the scenario depicted below took longer than the previous three.
The vote count finished at 6:30 am Pacific Standard Time, with the electoral vote
determination for the candidates occurring just 90 minutes prior to that (which
would be 5:00 am). Actual vote counting for this kind of scenario could easily be
different, but, again, the key point in these results is that the total electoral votes
for both candidates could not be determined until most of the votes were
counted. In this simulation, more than 96% of the vote was needed before a final
determination could be identified! The yellow highlight below shows when both
candidates had won their respective electoral votes.
Table 9: Washington Example Vote Count Rates
Hours
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
8.5
9
9.5
10
10.5
11
11.5
Washington
Vote %
Electoral Votes
Counted
Obama
Romney
10.62%
0
0
21.00%
1
1
31.35%
2
2
41.45%
2
2
50.23%
3
3
58.31%
4
3
65.21%
4
3
71.55%
4
4
76.34%
5
4
79.53%
5
4
82.32%
5
4
84.53%
5
4
86.48%
5
4
88.33%
5
4
90.12%
6
4
91.86%
6
4
93.56%
6
4
95.09%
6
4
96.54%
6
5
97.98%
6
5
99.41%
6
5
100%
6
5
An adjustment had to be made because voter turnout was less in 2012,
causing Washington’s PVV to decrease, allowing one more electoral vote to be
awarded to each candidate. The final electoral vote tally would have been seven
for Obama and five for Romney.
32
MakeYourVoteCount!
Final Scenario Summary: The following table shows all four states. Yellow
highlights show when the candidates’ electoral votes could be determined within
the time frame. You’ll notice that the adjustment changes are included with the
changed electoral votes in the parenthesis. The total columns on the far right are
the electoral votes as they accumulate, by every 30 minutes, for all four of these
states. Among these four states, the EVV approach shows the candidates are tied
at 17 electoral votes each.
The intent is to show that determining a winner can be a longer process than
what we currently experience. Consequently, the reporting of the process also
would be extended, emphasizing the importance of each individual vote. While
some may rush to predict the voting outcome, it may prove to be foolish. Rather,
the news media could capitalize on the suspense that may ensue since the
Electoral College, using the Equal Voice Voting approach, would closely follow
the popular vote. Should that be close, the final outcome would be suspenseful to
the end – which may well mean the early morning hours of the next day.
33
MakeYourVoteCount!
Table 10: Example States Vote Count Summary
Hours
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
7.5
8
8.5
9
10
10.5
11
11
5
12
12.5
13
13.5
New Hampshire
Electoral Votes
Obama
Romney
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Alabama
Electoral Votes
Obama
Romney
0
0
1
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
0
0
2
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Colorado
Electoral Votes
Obama
Romney
0
1
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
34
0
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4 (5)
4 (5)
4 (5)
4 (5)
4 (5)
4 (5)
4 (5)
4 (5)
Washington
Electoral Votes
Obama
Romney
0
1
2
2
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6 (7)
6 (7)
6 (7)
0
1
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
Total
Electoral Votes
Obama
Romney
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
3
4
5
6
6
9
9
10
11
11
12
12
14
14
14
14
14
14
15
15
15
15
16
15
16
15
16
15
16
15
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
MakeYourVoteCount!
OUR ELECTORAL COLLEGE
Our present Electoral College system is complex and sometimes messy. Let’s
first look at what our Constitution says, look at some of its history and, finally,
what it all means for us today.
Constitution
The following is from our U.S. Constitution. The portion in parenthesis is now
superseded by the 12th Amendment, which is quoted afterwards. The grammar
and spelling are taken from the original text so it may appear clumsy or incorrect,
as compared to our current English grammar rules.
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of
America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together
with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:
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: but no
Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under
the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two
persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with
themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the
Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit
sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the
President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the
Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes
shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be
the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors
appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an
equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately
chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then
from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the
35
MakeYourVoteCount!
President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the
Representation from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall
consist of a Member or Members from two-thirds of the States, and a Majority of
all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the
President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall
be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal
Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice-President.
12th Amendment
As noted above, the 12th Amendment supersedes the last portion quoted in the
Constitution.
The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for
President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of
the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted
for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President,
and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all
persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which
lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government
of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the
Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all
the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;
The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the
President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors
appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the
highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President,
the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President.
But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the
representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall
consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of
all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives
shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon
36
MakeYourVoteCount!
them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President
shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability
of the President.
The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the
Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors
appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers
on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose
shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the
whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally
ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the
United States.
If you find that this sounds a bit confusing, you’re not alone. How we select
our president and vice president has been anything except clear. It’s been
downright messy! Here’s some of the history our nation has endured.
Electoral College History
We must first realize that we started out small. There were 13 colonies coming
together under one flag, which later became the first 13 states. They were grouped
together in the Eastern portion of the country and had only around four million
people.
It’s worth noting that information traveled rather slowly, by today’s
standards, and that many thought most people were not schooled or aware
enough to cast a sensible vote. Some believed only white males who owned land
should be able to vote, for example. Some didn’t like the idea of political parties
either. Some could say that things really haven’t changed much in these regards,
as differing opinions seem to be everywhere.
Trust was not then nor is it now a thread of honor many cling to when
considering the powers that govern this country. There were a lot of arguments
about how the process should be established and, in the beginning years, some
rather ugly experiments were tried.
37
MakeYourVoteCount!
Remember, we’re selecting leaders of significant power and, as such, their
selection should be a sober and intelligent undertaking. Power struggles seldom
(ever?) are neat and tidy. Conflict arises, naturally, but one thing must be
remembered: our system of government works. It may not be tidy and it may not
satisfy everyone. Ours is a government of the people, by the people, and for the
people. Now, we need to modify the Electoral College so our presidential election
is exactly that and is transparently so.
Our Electoral College history includes a lot of attempts at making it a process
that could give everyone a fair representation. There have been a lot of trials and
a lot of errors in this regard. Here is a synopsis of what we have endured in the
past:
1. Let’s make Congress select the president! On the one hand, this
seemed like a good idea because Congress included people who had to
work most directly with the president. It would be kind of like selecting
your own boss. Then it was realized that it would only encourage envy and
revenge and (horrors!) divisiveness among Congress! Of course it would,
since it takes very little to accomplish that kind of problem.
2. Let someone else do it! The idea here was to let each state congress
make the selection. Again, the idea of corruption raised its head and cooler
heads thought better of it.
Notice that both of these ideas were for those who govern to select the nation’s
leader. It wasn’t until later that the idea surfaced to let citizens make the
selection. Our Founding Fathers decided to create a group (college) of Electors
who would be knowledgeable about the issues of the day and the merits of the
emerging and existing leaders. It was decided that each state would have a
number of Electors according to the number of people in each state (same as our
U.S. Representatives) plus two, to represent the number of each state’s senators.
Thus, they wisely decided to create a system that could respond to the popular
sentiment as well as acknowledge the concerns that arise due to geographic
representation.
38
MakeYourVoteCount!
That principle still holds today. We have a College of Electors who mostly vote
as the state population does: 435 Representatives plus 100 Senators = 535
Electors. They also added three Electors to represent Washington, D.C., which
gives us the current number of 538 Electors (Electoral Votes) for our presidential
elections. The 23rd Constitutional Amendment established this last adjustment.
Did you notice that I said, …mostly vote as the population does? That’s
because there have been times when the Electors did NOT vote as the popular
vote prescribed. That’s happened four times in the past, but has not emerged to
be consistent or seemingly corrupt enough to be tossed aside.
One of the interesting things about this design is how the vice president was
elected. Remember, there were no political parties when all of this began! So the
candidate who won the most electoral votes became the President. The candidate
with the second most electoral votes became the Vice President.
Just for a moment, think of what that would mean in today’s world. Can you
imagine having President Obama and Vice President Romney? How about
Obama and Vice President McCain? Or Bush and Vice President Kerry? Or Bush
and Vice President Gore?
Ties were another interesting bit of vote management. If candidates were
locked in a tie, the House of Representatives would then make the selection. The
Senate would be called upon (it never was) to make the decision if it was still a
tie.
Still, the introduction of political parties forced different rule changes for the
presidential elections. The big rule changes occurred because of the problem of
voting ties raising its head. Oh, and did you know that one of the first political
parties was named the Democratic-Republican Party? History – it’s interesting
stuff!
Anyway, I digress. Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr, in 1800, were tied
(remember, all candidates were still running individually, not as a
President/Vice-President combined ticket). The House of Representatives went
to work to break the tie. Again and again and again! 35 tie votes were cast (along
39
MakeYourVoteCount!
with a lot of back-room negotiations, I’ll bet), until Jefferson won the vote.
Whew!
It was obvious that this arrangement couldn’t persist! Something had to be
done! So Congress went to work and created the 12th Amendment of the
Constitution. If you think the current Electoral College system results are nonrepresentative of the popular sentiment and that it is a bit awkward (read messy),
you’re not alone. I agree with you and am recommending another change to it
that will now include more voters – not push many away in a swirl of
disenfranchisement.
Here are some interesting facts about our current Electoral College:
1. The presidential election is held every four years on the Tuesday after the
first Monday in November.
2. All states have an all-or-nothing system that awards all electors to the
winning presidential candidate. Maine and Nebraska have a different
variation of this system, which is explained later in this book.
3. A meeting of the state electors takes place on the first Monday after the
second Wednesday in December after the presidential election. That’s
when they cast their votes. As mentioned earlier, these electors typically
vote according to the popular vote within their state. That means all state
electoral votes are cast for whichever candidate won the state’s popular
vote.
4. A joint session of Congress (House of Representatives and the Senate)
meets on the 6th of January in the year following the meeting of the
electors. Of course, this date gets shifted if January 6 lands on a weekend.
Each state’s electoral votes are counted and the winning ticket (President
and Vice President) is officially declared.
5. The President-elect is sworn in as President of the United States two weeks
later on January 20th.
40
MakeYourVoteCount!
Something Seems Wrong
The most extreme comparison in the years noted in this writing (1980 – 2012)
came in 1984. As shown by the map below, only Minnesota (shown in blue) and
the District of Columbia gave their combined 13 electoral votes to the Democratic
Party, while every other state gave their combined 525 electoral votes to the
Republican Party (shown in red). Yet, the Democratic Party received 41% of the
popular vote. 41% of America’s voters suffered Vote Suppression that year!
Figure 4: 1984 Electoral Vote Map
If you voted Democratic in this election, you may have resented how the
popular vote was ignored or manipulated. If you voted Republican, it may be
surprising to see that Electoral College voting surpassed the Republican
expectation.
41
MakeYourVoteCount!
This concern for rural representation was also apparent in the highly
contentious 2000 election. The map below shows the Electoral College voting
results throughout the nation (shown below). 2,432,456 square miles (76% of the
nation) are represented in red (Republican) and 575,184 square miles (24% of the
nation) are represented in blue (Democrat). Still, the popular vote was actually
the opposite of this depiction. Republicans lost the popular vote by 216,000
votes.
Figure 5: 2000 Electoral Vote Map
A tremendous amount of time, money and energy are spent during every
presidential campaign to address the issues, values and beliefs of the voting
populace. Yet, as noted in these two examples, our current Electoral College
approach largely ignores (fails to represent) much of the sentiment of the nation’s
voters.
Rural America represents those who support our agriculture, mining, lumber,
transportation, and fishing industries, to name a few. These types of industries
serve the more heavily populated regions within America and the rest of the
world. If they are represented simply by a national majority rule, these people
42
MakeYourVoteCount!
and regions do not have an equal voice as compared to their metropolitan
counterparts; yet, they form a critical link to our survival and to our ability to
form a positive future for this nation.
For example, imagine a voter resides in a large metropolitan area. This voter’s
concerns may easily ignore laws that impact farming practices. After all, his/her
interactions with the nation’s agriculture are minimal, if experienced at all. Still,
the price and selection of food, or the availability of cotton or wool clothing (for
example) directly affects this voter. This same voter probably lives in a wood
structure and enjoys furniture made of wood. Will he/she be sensitive to the
timber industry, both in terms of its sustainable practice and the costs he/she will
experience? The same voter probably enjoys the benefits of this nation’s mining
in that steel is used for his/her car, coal may generate his/her electricity, and
precious metals are used in his/her watch or computer or television (to name a
few).
Will this voter be aware of the issues if a given candidate fails to address
them? Will the voter be aware of what affects our fishing industry if the
candidates ignore the rural voter in order to capture the more populous centers of
our society? Such resources are managed by a select few but they serve everyone.
These few are tasked with making a living by serving the needs of our general
populace for today’s needs, as well as attending to the sustainable environmental
concerns for generations to come.
In like manner, those living in rural America may not be sensitive to what is of
concern in our cities. Issues surrounding transportation, manufacturing, police,
poverty, education, and other concerns may not have the central priority that
people living in our population centers may have.
All geographic regions are an integral part of our nation’s culture. Their
geographic representation needs to be acknowledged and fair. The popular vote
should also be a driving force that is central to selecting our president. This book
proposes that the Equal Voice voting approach incorporates both of these
two concerns into an easy-to-use and accurate electoral vote counting
method.
43
MakeYourVoteCount!
VOTING RESULTS
We vote for a candidate that we think will serve us best when we vote for a
president. For some it’s a difficult choice and for others it seems easy. Regardless
of the logic and emotions we have when we cast our ballots, we rely on the
process to identify the winning candidate – our next President.
In truth, voting mechanisms may vary considerably and still elicit the same
result – a winner! As we consider our voting process, particularly the Electoral
College, it’s much too easy and too low of a standard to simply require that it spits
out a name for us.
There must be more consideration given to the consequence of our voting
mechanism. It is especially critical to do so because we are selecting the most
powerful political figure of our nation and world. What results do we actually get?
Electoral College
Our Founding Fathers were wise in forming the Electoral College in that it
gave voice to the geographic representation of our nation’s election process as
well as to the popular vote. Also, the Electoral College provides a mechanism to
gather the millions of votes across our nation and reduce them to a more
manageable and more meaningful number. However, there are some deficiencies
we suffer with our current Electoral College system.
All-Or-Nothing
All 50 states award their electoral votes in an all-or-nothing approach. That
means that the candidate who wins the popular vote in a given state, also gets all
of the state’s electoral votes.
For example, if California’s popular vote is mostly Democratic (regardless of
how close the voting may be) all 55 electoral votes is awarded to the Democratic
candidate. The voting voice of the state’s opposing party is not represented by the
Electoral College result.
44
MakeYourVoteCount!
Another example is Texas. Republican presidential candidates often win in
Texas so all 38 of its electoral votes will be cast for them. Democrat votes in Texas
are not represented in the Electoral College results.
Consequently, as you view the political results map during an election, states
are either blue (Democrat) or red (Republican). This is simply because votes cast
for the minority candidate in a state do not translate into any electoral votes from
that state.
Low Voter Turnout Prevails!
If you are a voter in a state that commonly votes for a different candidate than
you do, you may be inclined to not vote. After all, you may reason, your vote
doesn’t stand a chance of gaining representation. On the other hand, if you are a
voter in a state that strongly votes for a candidate you like, you may be tempted to
disregard your voting privileges because others will vote like you! There is
neither an urgency to vote nor any liability not to.
You may not actually think this way. Perhaps you’ve been sorely disappointed
in past elections and become frustrated because you simply sense it’s a lost cause.
Your reluctance to vote becomes a visceral and negative reaction to a
fundamental aspect of our democracy.
Maine and Nebraska are an exception to the rest of the nation in that each
gives two electoral votes to the candidate that wins the popular state vote. They
then also cast an electoral vote for the winner of each congressional district.
Thus, Maine has four electoral votes and Nebraska casts five electoral votes.
Maine began using the congressional district approach for voting in 1972. All
four of its electoral votes have always been cast for one presidential candidate.
Nebraska began using the congressional district approach for voting in 1992.
2008 was the only year it split its electoral votes, awarding one to Obama
(Democrat) and the other four to McCain (Republican).
The low voter turnout concern still prevails in these states, however. It can be
easy for any voter to assume they are in the minority in any such region (district)
and be disinclined to cast their vote, thinking theirs won’t make a difference. Or,
45
MakeYourVoteCount!
conversely, their vote won’t be needed because so many will carry the day, as
theirs would be among the majority vote.
For example, almost 32% of Maine’s registered voters did not cast their
ballots in 2012. Nebraska had almost 40% of its registered voters failing to vote.
Improving voter turnout could significantly change the final presidential
election results.
An evaluation of previous elections shows that the present system does not
truly represent our voters very well, and actually entices some voters to not vote
at all. For example, the following graph shows that the 2012 popular vote did not
match well with the Electoral College results.
2012 variances between the Democratic and Republican parties:
Popular Vote (solid bars) = 3.8%
Electoral Vote (striped bars) = 23.4%
2012
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
51%
61.7%
47.2%
38.3%
Obama % of Popular
Vote
Obama % of
Electoral Vote
Romney % of
Popular Vote
Romney % of
Electoral Vote
Graph 2: 2012 Vote Comparison Graph
Look at the solid bars in the graph above and notice how they vary from each
other. The blue bar represents the percentage of the popular vote won by Obama
and the red bar shows how much of the popular vote was won by Romney.
46
MakeYourVoteCount!
Notice how these solid bars (the popular votes) vary from each other. The
popular vote variance is close, showing only a 3.8% separation. This means the
voters were rather equally divided in their voting.
In like manner, look at the striped bars. These represent the number of
electoral votes a candidate received. The blue striped bars represent votes won by
Obama and the red striped bars represent the votes won by Romney. Notice how
much these bars vary from each other. This variance is 23.4%!
The Appendix shows all of the presidential elections from 1980 through 2012.
Third party candidates sometimes gathered as much as 19% of the popular vote
(1992). Yet they were never represented in the Electoral College in any of the four
elections in which they were counted. (See the examples shown in the Appendix
for 1980, 1992, 1996, and 2000).
It is interesting that in 1984 the popular vote varied by only 18.2% between
the Democratic and Republican parties (see Appendix). However, the electoral
vote varied as much as 95.2% between those same parties! This shows that the
present Electoral College system is not reflective of the popular vote.
This comparison shows that when the final tally of votes is made in the
Electoral College, a large segment of voters are not represented at all. Suppose
you are a registered Democrat and plan to vote for the Democratic candidate in
the upcoming election. Suppose, however, that you live in a state that usually
votes Republican. While you want to be a good citizen and vote, you know that
your vote will not have any effect because so many others will vote the opposite of
what you will. Knowing this, do you still vote? Will you be disappointed or
surprised when your candidate fails in your state?
This example can easily be reversed and be just as unfair for a registered
Republican voter voting in a state that usually votes Democratic.
The number of registered voters that actually vote in a presidential election is
typically low nationally. In 2012, for example, the number of registered voters
who voted was around 59.4%! This is a shame but it is also understandable, given
that many voters believe their vote will have little or no consequence.
47
MakeYourVoteCount!
Equal Voice Voting (EVV)
The results we would get if the nation used Equal Voice Voting would still
include successfully selecting a president. Remember, that’s the easy part and
almost any approach will work. But what else can we expect?
Some immediate results you might be wondering about would be direct
comparisons just made to our current Electoral College process. How would
Equal Voice Voting reflect the nation’s popular vote? How would it relate to
geographic sensitivities? Would Equal Voice Voting encourage or discourage
voting?
Reflects Popular Voting
One of the key results of EVV is that the number of electoral votes each
candidate wins would correlate better to the nation’s popular vote. Since all votes
would matter and would be part of the formula on a state-by-state basis, none of
the popular votes would be discarded as they are now.
The graph below shows how closely the electoral votes won using EVV would
be to the popular votes in 2012. The popular votes are presented as solid bars.
The electoral votes won if EVV was used, are presented as vertical stripped bars.
The electoral votes won using our current Electoral College system are illustrated
using horizontal stripped bars. Notice how well the EVV results correlate to the
popular votes and how much the popular vote results vary from the electoral
votes won using our current Electoral College approach.
48
MakeYourVoteCount!
2012
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
51.1%
51%
Obama % Equal
Voice Vote
Obama %
Popular Vote
61.7%
48.9%
Obama %
Romney % Equal
Electoral Vote
Voice Vote
47.2%
38.3%
Romney %
Popular Vote
Romney %
Electoral Vote
Graph 3: 2012 Electoral Vote and EVV Comparison Graph
Appendix D shows the comparisons of voting results for every Presidential
election from 1980 through 2012.
Reflects Regional Voting
I’ve already pointed out that Equal Voice Voting uses the electoral vote
allocation on a state-by-state basis. That means that voting results are sensitive to
the geographic representation we recognize in our Congress. But why is this
important?
If we only attended to the popular vote, the more populated areas would be
the primary source of votes to elect our presidents. Currently, half of the
country’s population is found in nine states. Another third of the population is
found in sixteen states. That leaves 25 states to contain only 1/6th of the
population.
Regional consideration is important because we, as a people, tend to be
sensitive to the values and perspectives of those around us. Thus, the nation votes
differently according to the region in which we live. For example, the Northeast
49
MakeYourVoteCount!
and Northwest tend to be more liberal than the Central plains states and the
Southeast. Cities tend to be more liberal than rural areas.
We are concerned, too, about where and how we earn our living. Differences
of opinion and perspectives arise when various industries are considered. Some
may be concerned about fishing or mining or timber or agriculture or
transportation or manufacturing, and so on. Each industry, dependent upon
certain regional areas, helps shape our concerns and opinions about who would
best serve our nation and us.
By awarding electoral votes for every U.S. Senator, two for every state, allows
EVV to grant a portion of representation evenly across the nation. Awarding
electoral votes for every U.S. Representative attends to the voice of the
population, wherever they might live. This approach, used to elect our U.S.
Congress, provides a sensitive and fair voice to all voting across the nation.
Encourages Voter Engagement
If voters realize that their vote will matter in an election, they may be more
interested and engaged in the process. If they know that even if their vote is
among the minority in their state and still matter, they won’t feel so
disenfranchised. If voters know that their vote matters even if they are among the
majority in their state, they may be more inclined to participate in the election
process.
Equal Voice Voting makes every vote matter!
For Whom Do We Vote?
As we consider voting results, regardless of the approach used, we should also
consider for whom we vote. Much has been said about voting being our patriotic
duty and a privilege and a right. Still, have you ever considered for whom you
vote?
I’m not talking about which candidate you choose or which political party you
favor. I’m referring to the idea that your vote has much more weight – more
significance – than merely a means to articulate your preference. It’s more than
casting your ballot for the candidate you think will best serve your interests.
50
MakeYourVoteCount!
There are five people, or classes of people, that your vote represents. Let’s
examine what your vote means and whom it also represents.
The first person, of course, is you. There may be many reasons why you select
a candidate. You like their politics. You like their values. You like their demeanor.
You like how they lead others. The list can be lengthy. Identifying reasons for
picking your candidate may come easy to you. That part is simple
Remember how I’ve mentioned that this country suffers from low voter
turnout during presidential elections? In 2012, for example, 40.6% of registered
voters did not vote. That means that more than 88 million registered voters never
cast their ballot that year!
You also vote for the registered voters that don’t vote! Some say that if
someone doesn’t vote that person has essentially voted. True, they’ve made a
choice but not one that registers anywhere. So if you voted in 2012, your one vote
also served to represent those that didn’t. That means your one vote is now worth
1.7 people! You probably know a few of them because they probably live in your
neighborhood.
Of course there are many who do not vote because they are unable to do so
and are not registered. These include those who are too young to vote. They
include some who are disabled or incapacitated and know they may not be able to
vote. In the census taken in 2010, the United States had 308,745,538 people.
Subtracting out the 217 million registered voters of 2012 means that your vote is
worth another 0.7 votes to make up for them.
Considering these three voting categories, your vote is being cast to represent
at least 2.4 people (including yourself)! Do you feel any pressure yet? Let’s
continue.
Our country is a very dominant and influential country in this world. How the
U.S. governs, the choices it makes and the values and interests of its people, make
significant impacts around the world. Our policies affect such things as wars and
hunger and health and natural resource management on a global scale. Your vote
affects these outcomes! We probably cannot identify a number to show how many
51
MakeYourVoteCount!
people your vote affects from this perspective, but your 2.7 now just got
multiplied by several hundred thousands. This is the fourth voting category.
Let’s continue by discussing the fifth voting category.
We speak of the here and now. We elect a president to a term of four years
whenever we vote. Do you consider all of those four years or do you focus mostly
(only?) on the current few months? Let’s expand that horizon a bit. How will the
next president influence those four years? How will the next president influence
the next decade? How will he or she make a difference a generation or two after
you’ve passed away?
Think beyond your lifetime. It’s hard to do, I realize, but consider presidents
in the past and consider how they’ve influenced your life. Then consider how
seemingly small changes they initiate have made a difference for you.
Let’s consider one example out of many from one president out of many.
President Eisenhower initiated the effort for our nation to build a national
freeway system. How often have you traveled on this nation’s freeways? Perhaps
you do it daily. A president made that kind of difference! And that was started
only seven decades ago (Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956).
So now your vote will affect future generations – many generations! Your
children and your grandchildren and your great-grandchildren (if you are so
blessed) will be impacted by the vote you cast for the next president. Your vote is
now multiplied by millions.
But why limit the consequence of your vote to only the human species? As
science informs us of how closely we are tied to our environment and how our
actions affect our home – this small blue planet – our vote for a president has
huge consequences. Consider that trees and other plants don’t vote. Insects and
fish and mammals (other than humans) don’t vote. Yet, our political leaders,
especially our president, make a substantial life-and-death difference for these
living entities. Our natural resources don’t vote either. Fresh water doesn’t vote.
Again, the person in the White House impacts all of these natural resources. Your
vote impacts all of these earthly resources.
52
MakeYourVoteCount!
Your voting privilege helps shape our lives and our future when you vote. The
idea that one person equals one vote, in my opinion, is nonsense and it’s a very
self-centered perspective. Your vote means much more than simply one vote to
represent one person!
53
MakeYourVoteCount!
THE POPULAR VOTE
One idea to replace the Electoral College that has been put forth is to simply
use the total from the nation’s popular votes to determine the winner. The idea is
that we can avoid the Electoral College entirely and then pick the candidate that
the majority favors.
Let’s begin with how our current Electoral College process ignores the voice of
many citizens, giving rise to the idea that a simple popular vote seems to be a
good fix. There is some validity in this perception, though I submit it’s only part
of the concern as it ignores the geography of our nation.
Popular Vote Versus Electoral College Results
The graph below (also seen in the previous chapter) shows how the popular
votes for each candidate in the 2012 presidential election compared with the
Electoral College results. As you review the numbers, notice how wide the
variance (difference) of results is between the popular votes and Electoral votes.
2012
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
51%
61.7%
47.2%
38.3%
Obama % of Popular
Vote
Obama % of
Electoral Vote
Romney % of
Popular Vote
Romney % of
Electoral Vote
Graph 4: 2012 Vote Comparison Graph
54
MakeYourVoteCount!
Obama captured 51% of the popular votes while Romney captured 47.2%.
That’s a small variance of 3.8%. However, Obama captured 61.7% of the Electoral
votes while Romney captured 38.3%. That’s a large variance of 23.4%!
This comparison shows that when the final tally of votes is made in the
Electoral College, a large segment of voters is not represented at all The popular
vote is more direct and reflects how people vote better than does the Electoral
College results.
Geographic Look at the Population
Now let’s look at what the popular vote approach ignores: the expanse and
diversity of our nation as it pertains to our geographic influence.
One of the intents of our current Electoral College process was to set up a
system that had the states vote according to their proportion of electoral votes. In
this way, representation of our nation’s geographic regions (states) and capturing
the popular vote would be all done at the same time. As we consider the popular
vote, it’s a good idea to consider how the nation is populated from state-to-state.
The map below shows how states vary in their population densities. The green
and yellow filled states are the most densely populated states. As you can see, the
population is not evenly spread among states.
•
The nine green states equal ½ of our nation’s population!
•
The 16 yellow states equal 1/3rd of our nation’s population!
•
The 25 gray states equal only 1/6th of our nation’s population!
As you review the map, consider how presidential candidate campaign
strategies would change if only the popular vote mattered. Most of their attention
would be focused on the most populated states and might also include the major
cities in the lesser-populated states. Rural America would be largely ignored!
55
MakeYourVoteCount!
Figure 6: Population Density Map
What happens when you’re ignored? You feel pushed away and it’s as if you
don’t matter. Your vote won’t matter if the nation uses a purely popular vote
approach and you live in rural America. Consider those that live in the 25 gray
states above. The popular vote approach simply won’t serve them well when it
comes time to pick their next president.
Essentially, the states shown in green above would be the primary focus for
the candidates and would also be the key players in picking the next president.
Since our country is so large, the geographic differences and distances play a
huge part in the diversity of cultures we experience nation-wide.
The table on the next page shows the population density of each state
projected from the census for 2012. There are 266,595,025 citizens found in the
states and Washington, D.C. in the left column. There are only 47,319,015 in the
25 states in the right column. They comprise less than 18% of those in the left
column.
56
MakeYourVoteCount!
It’s clear that the 25 states in the right column would not be significant in a
presidential campaign and that these citizens would largely be disenfranchised if
we used a popular vote approach to elect a president.
Table 11: State Populations
States
California
Texas
New York
Florida
Illinois
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Georgia
Michigan
North Carolina
New Jersey
Virginia
Washington
Massachusetts
Arizona
Indiana
Tennessee
Missouri
Maryland
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Colorado
Alabama
South Carolina
Louisiana
Kentucky
2012
38,041,430
26,059,203
19,570,261
19,317,568
12,875,255
12,763,536
11,544,225
9,919,945
9,883,360
9,752,073
8,864,590
8,185,867
6,897,012
6,646,144
6,553,255
6,537,334
6,456,243
6,021,988
5,884,563
5,726,398
5,379,139
5,187,582
4,822,023
4,723,723
4,601,893
4,380,415
States
Oregon
Oklahoma
Connecticut
Iowa
Mississippi
Arkansas
Kansas
Utah
Nevada
New Mexico
Nebraska
West Virginia
Idaho
Hawaii
Maine
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Montana
Delaware
South Dakota
Alaska
North Dakota
District of
Vermont
Wyoming
57
2012
3,899,353
3,814,820
3,590,347
3,074,186
2,984,926
2,949,131
2,885,905
2,855,287
2,758,931
2,085,538
1,855,525
1,855,413
1,595,728
1,392,313
1,329,192
1,320,718
1,050,292
1,005,141
917,092
833,354
731,449
699,628
632,323
626,011
576,412
MakeYourVoteCount!
Population Density Variances
Clearly, all states are not populated equally. Alaska, for example, is sparsely
populated having a little more than 1.2 persons per square mile. New Jersey, on
the other hand, is quite dense having 1,189 people per square mile. People’s
values and concerns shift in relation to such density variations. Such values and
concerns greatly affect how a citizen from a sparsely populated area views a
candidate versus a citizen from a densely populated area.
The tables on the next pages, taken from www.wikipedia.org (Wikipedia,
2012), show how varied the population concentrations are among the nation’s
states. The first table lists the states in alphabetical order. The second table shows
the state population densities (number of people per square mile or square
kilometer) as they are ranked in descending order, from the densest to the
sparsest.
Locate the state in which you live and note its density ranking. Find which
states have similar densities to your state. Have those states voted similarly to
yours in past elections? (Compare the bar graph results shown in the Appendix.)
58
MakeYourVoteCount!
Table 12: Population Density by Alphabetical Order
Rank
28
51
34
35
12
38
5
7
1
9
19
14
45
13
17
37
41
23
25
39
6
4
18
32
33
29
49
44
43
22
2
46
8
16
48
11
36
40
10
3
20
47
21
27
42
31
15
26
30
24
50
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Population density
94.65 inhabitants per square mile (36.54 /km 2)
1.264 inhabitants per square mile (0.488 /km 2)
57.05 inhabitants per square mile (22.03 /km 2)
56.43 inhabitants per square mile (21.79 /km 2)
241.7 inhabitants per square mile (93.3 /km 2)
49.33 inhabitants per square mile (19.05 /km 2)
739.1 inhabitants per square mile (285.4 /km 2)
464.3 inhabitants per square mile (179.3 /km 2)
10,065 inhabitants per square mile (3,886 /km 2)
353.4 inhabitants per square mile (136.4 /km 2)
169.5 inhabitants per square mile (65.4 /km 2)
214.1 inhabitants per square mile (82.7 /km 2)
19.15 inhabitants per square mile (7.39 /km 2)
231.5 inhabitants per square mile (89.4 /km 2)
181.7 inhabitants per square mile (70.2 /km 2)
54.81 inhabitants per square mile (21.16 /km 2)
35.09 inhabitants per square mile (13.55 /km 2)
110.0 inhabitants per square mile (42.5 /km 2)
105.0 inhabitants per square mile (40.5 /km 2)
43.04 inhabitants per square mile (16.62 /km 2)
596.3 inhabitants per square mile (230.2 /km 2)
840.2 inhabitants per square mile (324.4 /km 2)
173.9 inhabitants per square mile (67.1 /km 2)
67.14 inhabitants per square mile (25.92 /km 2)
63.50 inhabitants per square mile (24.52 /km 2)
87.26 inhabitants per square mile (33.69 /km 2)
6.858 inhabitants per square mile (2.648 /km 2)
23.97 inhabitants per square mile (9.25 /km 2)
24.80 inhabitants per square mile (9.58 /km 2)
147.0 inhabitants per square mile (56.8 /km 2)
1,189 inhabitants per square mile (459 /km 2)
17.16 inhabitants per square mile (6.63 /km 2)
412.3 inhabitants per square mile (159.2 /km 2)
198.2 inhabitants per square mile (76.5 /km 2)
9.916 inhabitants per square mile (3.829 /km 2)
281.9 inhabitants per square mile (108.8 /km 2)
55.22 inhabitants per square mile (21.32 /km 2)
40.33 inhabitants per square mile (15.57 /km 2)
284.3 inhabitants per square mile (109.8 /km 2)
1,006 inhabitants per square mile (388 /km 2)
155.4 inhabitants per square mile (60.0 /km 2)
10.86 inhabitants per square mile (4.19 /km 2)
155.4 inhabitants per square mile (60.0 /km 2)
98.07 inhabitants per square mile (37.87 /km 2)
34.30 inhabitants per square mile (13.24 /km 2)
67.73 inhabitants per square mile (26.15 /km 2)
204.5 inhabitants per square mile (79.0 /km 2)
102.6 inhabitants per square mile (39.6 /km 2)
77.06 inhabitants per square mile (29.75 /km 2)
105.2 inhabitants per square mile (40.6 /km 2)
5.851 inhabitants per square mile (2.259 /km 2)
59
MakeYourVoteCount!
Table 13: Population Density by Rank
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
State
District of Columbia
New Jersey
Rhode Island
Massachusetts
Connecticut
Maryland
Delaware
New York
Florida
Pennsylvania
Ohio
California
Illinois
Hawaii
Virginia
North Carolina
Indiana
Michigan
Georgia
South Carolina
Tennessee
New Hampshire
Kentucky
Wisconsin
Louisiana
Washington
Texas
Alabama
Missouri
West Virginia
Vermont
Minnesota
Mississippi
Arizona
Arkansas
Oklahoma
Iowa
Colorado
Maine
Oregon
Kansas
Utah
Nevada
Nebraska
Idaho
New Mexico
South Dakota
North Dakota
Montana
Wyoming
Alaska
Population density
10,065 inhabitants per square mile (3,886 /km 2)
1,189 inhabitants per square mile (459 /km 2)
1,006 inhabitants per square mile (388 /km 2)
840.2 inhabitants per square mile (324.4 /km 2)
739.1 inhabitants per square mile (285.4 /km 2)
596.3 inhabitants per square mile (230.2 /km 2)
464.3 inhabitants per square mile (179.3 /km 2)
412.3 inhabitants per square mile (159.2 /km 2)
353.4 inhabitants per square mile (136.4 /km 2)
284.3 inhabitants per square mile (109.8 /km 2)
281.9 inhabitants per square mile (108.8 /km 2)
241.7 inhabitants per square mile (93.3 /km 2)
231.5 inhabitants per square mile (89.4 /km 2)
214.1 inhabitants per square mile (82.7 /km 2)
204.5 inhabitants per square mile (79.0 /km 2)
198.2 inhabitants per square mile (76.5 /km 2)
181.7 inhabitants per square mile (70.2 /km 2)
173.9 inhabitants per square mile (67.1 /km 2)
169.5 inhabitants per square mile (65.4 /km 2)
155.4 inhabitants per square mile (60.0 /km 2)
155.4 inhabitants per square mile (60.0 /km 2)
147.0 inhabitants per square mile (56.8 /km 2)
110.0 inhabitants per square mile (42.5 /km 2)
105.2 inhabitants per square mile (40.6 /km 2)
105.0 inhabitants per square mile (40.5 /km 2)
102.6 inhabitants per square mile (39.6 /km 2)
98.07 inhabitants per square mile (37.87 /km 2)
94.65 inhabitants per square mile (36.54 /km 2)
87.26 inhabitants per square mile (33.69 /km 2)
77.06 inhabitants per square mile (29.75 /km 2)
67.73 inhabitants per square mile (26.15 /km 2)
67.14 inhabitants per square mile (25.92 /km 2)
63.50 inhabitants per square mile (24.52 /km 2)
57.05 inhabitants per square mile (22.03 /km 2)
56.43 inhabitants per square mile (21.79 /km 2)
55.22 inhabitants per square mile (21.32 /km 2)
54.81 inhabitants per square mile (21.16 /km 2)
49.33 inhabitants per square mile (19.05 /km 2)
43.04 inhabitants per square mile (16.62 /km 2)
40.33 inhabitants per square mile (15.57 /km 2)
35.09 inhabitants per square mile (13.55 /km 2)
34.30 inhabitants per square mile (13.24 /km 2)
24.80 inhabitants per square mile (9.58 /km 2)
23.97 inhabitants per square mile (9.25 /km 2)
19.15 inhabitants per square mile (7.39 /km 2)
17.16 inhabitants per square mile (6.63 /km 2)
10.86 inhabitants per square mile (4.19 /km 2)
9.916 inhabitants per square mile (3.829 /km 2)
6.858 inhabitants per square mile (2.648 /km 2)
5.851 inhabitants per square mile (2.259 /km 2)
1.264 inhabitants per square mile (0.488 /km 2)
60
MakeYourVoteCount!
Erasing State Lines
If a popular vote approach is used for presidential elections, state lines will
not matter. Imagine the country with the state lines erased away, as shown below.
Figure 7: United States Outline
One could be led to believe that a fundamental premise of the popular vote
is that the nation’s population is quite homogenous. It does not matter where the
people live, be it in cities or in the country, in the south or the north or along the
coasts or in the central plains. The United State citizens are mostly the same
because, after all, this country is known as the Great Melting Pot.
Of course, this premise is not true but suppose it is. What happens during an
election? Consider that the polls open first on the East Coast and continue to do
so across the nation as the time zones reach the 6 am opening hour. The East
Coast will have a full three hours head start on voting compared to those living on
the West Coast.
Statistical significance comes into play in this scenario. Statistical significance
is the point of polling measurement wherein the sample indicates the results
from the whole.
61
MakeYourVoteCount!
For example, imagine you have a swimming pool and you want to measure the
level of chlorine is in the water. You do not need to analyze the all of the water in
the pool. Rather, you need only to take a sample of the water to be confidant you
know how concentrated the chlorine is in your swimming pool.
Statistical significance is actually a very low percentage. Instead of gathering
all of the votes of the nation, one can be reasonably confident that a 5% sample is
enough, provided the sample reflects the whole population.
Voter turnout has been low for many presidential elections. For example,
voter turnout in 2012 was less than 60% of the registered voters. There were
217,430,221 registered voters in that year and only 129,132,140 voters
participated. If all that is needed is a 5% sample, then when 6,456,607 votes were
counted, a presidential winner could be declared, if the leading candidate realized
a significant margin.
So let’s be safe in our estimate. Instead of a 5% threshold, assume a 10% or
15% threshold for the statistical significance. Then the threshold would either be
12,913,214 (10%) or 19,369,821 (15%). That is similar to the total voting in New
York (7,061,925 votes), Georgia (3,900,050 (votes), and Florida (8,490,162 votes
for a total of 19,452,137 votes!
If that scenario were true, then voters living along the East Coast would be all
that was needed to elect a president. Voters west of the Mississippi would not
have to vote at all!
If that scenario seems unfair to those on the West Coast (or in the Plains
states), the nation could revise its voting process and have all polls open at the
exact same time. There would be no timing difference according to where anyone
lives. Still, voters who vote first would be the ones that reach that 5% statistical
significance threshold. A presidential winner could be declared by noon Pacific
Standard Time, if that scenario was true.
Certainly, rules would probably be put in place to make sure larger samples
would be counted before any declaration was made. But how much of a sample
would be needed?
62
MakeYourVoteCount!
When would the news media be free to declare a presidential winner? It would
be early if the popular vote approach were used. What effect would an early
declaration have?
If you were among those who voted in the West or voted late in the day, your
vote would not statistically matter. How would you feel about voting? Would you
be incited to vote? Would you discuss this feeling with others and encourage
others to avoid voting as well?
Thirteen Colonies
Another, though similar, scenario would be to consider the United States
voters as homogenous allowing us to elect a president from a statistical
significant portion of these voters, rather than the entire nation. One such pool of
voters to consider would be the voting citizens from the original thirteen colonies.
These states include: Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts,
New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and South Carolina.
If 2012 is used as an example; the votes from these thirteen colonies would be
30.7% of the nation’s votes. That sample would be statistically significant
compared to the entire nation.
If the voting pool is homogenous and regions and pockets of culture and
diversity don’t matter, then voting only by the 13 colonies would certainly be
simpler and not so cost prohibitive. Campaigning, for example, would be easier
and the costs associated with the process would be greatly reduced.
That idea may not sit well with you, particularly if you do not live in one of the
original thirteen colonies. It would mean a large proportion of the nation
becomes irrelevant. By the way, remember, 2012 had only 33.44% (a difference of
2.74% from the 13 colonies) of the registered voters that counted due to our allor-nothing Electoral College approach. If the scenario just described bothers you,
the current Electoral College results should too.
Of course, the scenarios above are fictitious and maybe silly. The point is that
the popular vote will cause voter turnout to erode even further than what we
currently experience. Our Representative Democracy would be put at risk!
63
MakeYourVoteCount!
Grains of Sand
Consider the results of a popular vote from another perspective. Suppose that
you vote among the many million who vote across the nation. Would you feel
your vote was significant? Remember, for example, there were 129,132,140 voters
casting their ballots in 2012. Would your one vote make a difference? Would you
be incited to participate?
It might seem to many that their one vote would be like a grain of sand on a
beach. What difference does one more or one less make?
Geography Matters
Where we live affects how we vote. We may not change political party loyalties
simply because we move to a new location, but local attitudes and values and
conversations have their effect. We may find that we may be persuaded by others
close to us to consider a different perspective and a different candidate. Where we
live and where we vote matters.
It needs to also be remembered that one of the tenets of the Founding Fathers
as they established the Electoral College was the premise that states, not only the
people, should vote. By establishing this approach they acknowledged the
independence and autonomy of individual states. How each state gathered and
counted their in-state representation of votes for their Electoral College vote total
was left to each state individually.
We take pride in our regional identity. If we know that our vote can have a
more direct impact on the election results in our state, we may have more
incentive to vote. Instead of being one among 129,132,140 voters, for example, it
might be more significant for a Wisconsin voter if he/she is among 3,071,434
voters.
If Equal Voice Voting were used in Wisconsin, taking the example above
further, the example voter may feel more incentive to vote knowing their vote
makes a difference if it is among 307,143 voters. This is the Popular Vote Value if
Wisconsin had used Equal Voice Voting in 2012.
64
MakeYourVoteCount!
The United States citizenry is not homogenous at all and we enjoy a great
diversity among our people. We reflect different regions and different cultures
and a lot of other diverse demographics. U.S. voters reflect a wide array of ethnic
and race backgrounds as well as religious disciplines. We are young and old,
educated and not, white and blue collar workers, male and female, rich and poor,
able and disabled, religious and not, and so on. Our diversity is a rich resource for
talent and resourcefulness and future hope. It is also a source for many
challenges. We do not all vote the same!
The point of this discussion is that voter turnout is vital to our representative
democracy. A popular vote approach can easily cause voters to be further
disenfranchised from the voting process. In short, a popular vote poses a great
risk for our political system.
Abolishing the Electoral College
Another reason that we don’t use the popular vote on a national level is that it
would mean we would have to abolish the Electoral College altogether. That
would require a Constitutional amendment, which is a challenge. Wikipedia
provides an excellent explanation of what that requires:
Article Five of the United States Constitution describes the process
whereby the federal Constitution may be altered. Twenty-seven
amendments have been added (appended as codicils) to the Constitution.
Amendment proposals may be adopted and sent to the states for
ratification by either:
• Two-thirds (supermajority) vote of members present—assuming that a quorum
exists—in both the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United
States Congress;
OR
• By a two-thirds (supermajority) vote of a national convention called by
Congress at the request of the legislatures of at least two-thirds (at present 34)
of the states.
All 33 proposals to amend the Constitution that have been sent to
the states for ratification have come into being via the Congress. However,
State legislatures have, at various times, used their power to apply for a
national convention in order to pressure Congress into proposing a desired
amendment. For example, the movement to amend the Constitution to
65
MakeYourVoteCount!
provide for the direct election of senators began to see such proposals
regularly pass the House of Representatives only to die in the Senate from
the early 1890s onward.
As time went by, more and more state legislatures adopted
resolutions demanding that a convention be called, thus pressuring the
Senate to finally relent and approve what later became the Seventeenth
Amendment for fear that such a convention—if permitted to assemble—
might stray to include issues above and beyond the direct election of
senators.
To become an operative part of the Constitution, an amendment,
whether proposed by Congress or a national constitutional convention,
must be ratified by either:
P The legislatures of three-fourths (at present 38) of the states;
OR
P State ratifying conventions in three-fourths (at present 38) of the
states.
Succinctly, it means that 2/3rds of the U.S. House of Representatives and
the U.S. Senate each must be in favor of the amendment and then have 34 state
legislatures also vote in favor of it. Daunting isn’t it. It’s not easy to change the
Constitution because the amendment process is full of challenge. That’s good in
that it preserves the Constitution and protects it from changing due to the whim
of a few or within a short period of time.
However, a Constitutional amendment is still a viable method to enact a
change if a large majority of our political leaders agree. I’ll discuss this more in
the next chapter when I discuss the National Popular Vote Bill.
What Should We Expect?
Our presidential election process must be sensitive to geographic expanses of
our nation. Attending to the population alone will not suffice as it would
effectively disenfranchise a large portion of our voting citizenry and serve to
undermine our democratic process.
We currently cast, collect and count our votes on a state-by-state basis. State
voices (votes) matter and we take great pride in how our own state may compare
with others. This pride, or identifying with our home state, is not a simple matter
66
MakeYourVoteCount!
that can or should be brushed aside easily. While it is appealing to give great
attention to a simple popular vote, including the consideration for regional/state
differences is also important. Further, such consideration, in my opinion,
encourages voter turnout.
Equal Voice Voting attends to the population concerns and acknowledges the
geographic importance of this great country. Let’s fix our Electoral College so we
can gain the representation for all people and all states! Let’s end this kind of
Vote Suppression!
67
MakeYourVoteCount!
THE NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE BILL
Now that you understand what a popular vote approach entails – it’s
simplicity and shortcomings – let’s turn our attention to what is being called the
National Popular Vote (NPV) bill. It’s a bill that’s currently wending its way
through state legislatures with a fair amount of success. You may not have heard
of it because it has not achieved much national acclaim other than with your
political leaders. You may well wonder what it is and what it promises.
The idea behind The National Popular Vote Bill is that a state, in collaboration
with several other states, makes an agreement to cast all of its electoral votes for
whichever candidate wins the national popular vote. It’s a simple approach and
one that can be lauded for its clever modification to reflect the popular intent of
the nation while not incurring the effort needed to amend the U.S. Constitution.
The results at first glance appear to be good because you derive the same
result as the national popular vote. The candidate who wins the most popular
votes across the nation becomes the next president. However, the citizens within
a given state who cast their popular votes for the losing candidates may see all of
their electoral votes slipped into another candidate’s pocket.
In order for the National Popular Vote Bill to take effect, it must be adopted
by enough states that, collectively, equal or exceed 270 electoral votes. That’s the
electoral vote total needed for a candidate to win the election. As of this writing,
ten states and Washington, D.C. have passed legislation to participate in the
agreement. Is your state one of these?
68
MakeYourVoteCount!
These states and their respective electoral votes include:
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
California (55)
Hawaii (4)
Illinois (20)
Maryland (10)
Massachusetts (11)
New Jersey (14)
New York (29)
Rhode Island (4)
Vermont (3)
Washington (12)
The NPV bill has already (as of this writing) captured 165 electoral votes
within its agreement. They are 61% of the way to the desired 270 electoral votes
for it to be enacted.
You may notice that the states already lined up for this election approach
typically vote Democratic. This does not mean that the idea is anti-Republican.
Many Republican state legislatures currently view the idea quite favorably.
The National Popular Vote (NPV) is seen as a way to fairly easily adjust the
results of the Electoral College in favor of a national popular vote, without
requiring a Constitutional amendment. You may remember from the discussion
in the previous chapter how challenging enacting a Constitutional amendment
might be. NPV is also a means wherein the general public really doesn’t have to
be aware of the change. The NPV bill does not require a mass buy-in from the
voting public to become a reality.
What’s not to like? There are several aspects of NPV that really deserve
consideration. Remember, consequences matter and there are several that you, a
concerned voter, should be made aware of. Here are some questions about NPV
worth considering.
69
MakeYourVoteCount!
Is NPV Constitutional?
Article One, Section 10 of the Constitution states: No state shall, without the
consent of Congress… enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or
with a foreign power. The basic idea is to preserve the independence of the
individual states. In fact, one of the great concerns of our Founding Fathers was
to preserve such independence and to not allow the Federal government to retain
power over the states for a variety of concerns. Thus, the Constitutional provision
for the states to retain separate independence was considered critical. The
National Popular Vote bill could infringe on this separate status. Effectively, then,
the compact erases the state lines in favor of this new voting territory.
How does NPV affect swing states?
The NPV bill promises that there would no longer be swing or battleground
states. This is actually not true because the focus of the campaigns would be on
where the most people reside. Remember, half of the nation resides in just nine
states. Those states, and major cities of a few of the remaining states would
receive the primary focus of the campaigns. One sixth of the nation resides in 25
states. Those states, half the country, would be largely ignored during
presidential campaigns.
Which state(s) do a vote recount under NPV?
Typically, a state with a close election does a vote recount. It’s not an
automatic decision but some candidates and/or political parties may call for one.
A recount may determine a different voting result. That would mean a different
candidate may get all of the electoral votes of that state.
What happens if NPV is in place? If the vote count were close on a national
basis, would all states within the NPV compact with small vote differences be
asked to do a recount? Or would states with wide margins be asked to do a
recount as well? Certainly, mistakes in the count could occur in any state, so since
a national vote tally is what is important, would a recount even be considered?
Remember, states that do a vote recount also incur a recount cost. Recounting
70
MakeYourVoteCount!
could be required of multiple states to ensure voting count accuracy. Again, the
separate state borders become blurred if a vote recount is required due to NPV
being in place.
It seems obvious that states that do not adopt the NPV bill would only incur a
vote recount if their popular vote totals were close, as is the case with the current
approach. These individual states would only be attempting to find the dominant
candidate within their state election. They would not consider the results of the
national popular vote tally for recount purposes.
What if a state withdraws from the NPV agreement?
The agreement to form a compact of states equaling 270 electoral votes would
no longer be in place if one or more states withdrew from the rest of NPV states.
Such disruption would affect a major block of voters across multiple states by the
decisions of a few legislators from the state(s) that withdrew.
If your state was part of the NPV agreement and another state withdrew from
the agreement, causing the NPV compact to dissolve, your state would then be
affected. Your state’s independence, regarding how it applies the Electoral
College, would certainly be at risk.
How are voters disenfranchised with NPV?
The intent of the Electoral College is currently set up so the results reflect the
sentiment of its voters. I’ve already shown how that doesn’t happen with the allor-nothing approach. The idea of voting within your state means you are
contributing to the voice of your state.
NPV eradicates the state identification by causing everyone’s vote within the
NPV agreement to merge together in support of the most popular candidate of
the nation. If you should happen to vote along with the majority of voters in your
state and your candidate loses the popular vote, your vote is essentially discarded.
You become a disenfranchised voter because there would be no result showing
your sentiment (voice) mattered.
71
MakeYourVoteCount!
What would this look like? The following provides some what-if scenarios that
help illustrate this point.
What will the media report about NPV results?
One of the key advances in our modern technological age is that businesses
and other endeavors have greater accuracy in the data collected and the reporting
from such data. The Electoral College results should not be any different. These
results should closely reflect how our nation votes. Few businesses or other
endeavors that rely on metrics would survive if the results they gathered reflected
reality as poorly as our Electoral College currently does. This is especially true for
results the NPV approach promises.
There is a saying that perception creates reality. Currently, the Electoral
College results do not reflect how the people actually vote. For example, Obama
won the popular vote in 2012 by only a 3.85% margin. Yet, he enjoyed a 126
electoral vote victory, which is a 23.4% margin (more than six times greater!).
The news media and the Democratic Party clung to the notion that Obama won
by a mandate – a commanding victory! It’s not true, of course, but the perception
was created and reported. The slip in reality has become a perceived truth.
What would have happened if the National Popular Vote had been in
place in 2012 with all Democrat-leaning states?
For that to happen, more states would have to join the National Popular Vote
compact so that collectively they could equal 270 votes. As of this writing, there
are nine states (California, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New
Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont) and Washington, D.C. already in
the compact and offer 165 votes. These all voted for Obama in 2012, so if we
include more Democratic-leaning states to arrive at the 270 magic number, we
could include Colorado, Florida, Michigan, Nevada, Ohio, Oregon, and
Pennsylvania. That adds another 105 electoral votes to bring the grand total to
270 electoral votes. What would the Electoral College margin of victory be in this
scenario?
72
MakeYourVoteCount!
If Obama won the popular vote:
Because we used all Democratic-leaning states in this scenario, the Electoral
College results would have been exactly the same as we experienced in 2012.
Obama would have still won by 126 electoral votes. As you know, the news media
and Democrats reported that advantage as a mandate, thought it truly was not.
If Romney won the popular vote:
Since Romney lost by only 3.85% of the popular vote, it’s well within reason to
suggest that the results could have shifted by a mere difference of 2% of the
popular vote. Romney would have won 476 electoral votes to Obama’s 62! Obama
would have captured 11.5% of the electoral votes, giving Romney a perceived
88.5% winning margin! The temptation to report this considerable election
advantage would be hard to ignore by the media and Republicans.
What would have happened if the National Popular Vote had been in
place in 2012 with a mix of Democrat and Republican-leaning states?
Suppose that the states added to the mix were Republican-leaning states, so
the states included in the National Popular Vote pool would be more evenly
divided. If we add Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, South
Carolina, and Texas, along with the nine aforementioned Democrat-leaning
states and Washington, D.C. already in the compact, the total would be 270
electoral votes. How would the election have turned out in 2012?
If Obama won the popular vote:
Given the compact of 270 electoral votes above, Obama would have won 437
electoral votes to Romney’s 101. Obama would have captured 81% of the electoral
votes to Romney’s 19%. It hardly would have reflected how the people actually
voted!
If Romney won the popular vote:
Romney would have won 371 electoral votes to Obama’s 167. That would give
him a 69% to 31% electoral vote advantage!
73
MakeYourVoteCount!
The point of all of this conjecture is to show that it is vital that the Electoral
College results accurately reflect how the people vote. The NPV supporters
correctly point out that the candidate who wins the popular vote will win the
election. Another harsh reality is that a false result sends a strong and dominant
message that a winning candidate would be victorious by incorrect and large
margins. The media and winning political party would convert such incorrect
perceptions into political truth to sway the general public.
Election results matter not just because they elect a President (we already
accomplish this) but also because they point to the voice of the people (the
current system fails this concern). False readings of such results can have
consequences the voting public doesn’t deserve.
What Do NPV Proponents Argue?
The National Popular Vote proponents are aware of Equal Voice Voting or, at
least, aware that others have proposed a more proportional voting system be
used. The following addresses these counter-arguments.
False Polling Results:
The NPV supporters say their polling clearly shows that the majority of voters
prefer the National Popular Vote bill. However, the polling that the NPV
supporters point to is misleading. Actually, the results point more towards a
frustration felt about the current Electoral College than support for the NPV bill.
The question used in most of the polling asks: How do you think we should elect
the President: should it be the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states,
or the current electoral college system?
The polling question used can also be interpreted to support Equal Voice
Voting over the current system. Few of the general public actually comprehends
the full consequences of the National Popular Vote so equating the results from
this question, as a validation of the NPV approach, is misleading.
What would the polling results be if the question read: Should your state’s
voting be independent of other states? The results might be interesting and
74
MakeYourVoteCount!
might point to our current Electoral College system and even support Equal Voice
Voting. How a question is asked can greatly influence a polling result.
Equality of Voting:
The NPV proponents are confused when they claim that proportional voting
(EVV) does not make every vote equal. They point to the idea that more voting
weight is given to rural states than those that are more populated. This is true
because every state receives electoral votes according to the number of U.S.
Congress members it has.
Every voter within each state would be on an equal basis, if EVV were used.
All votes would gain representation in the electoral vote results on a state-bystate basis. Instead of an all-or-nothing approach, EVV proportions the results to
the viable candidates within each state. Thus, voters who cast votes for a
candidate that does not win the majority of votes in that state are still counted –
their vote matters. EVV is non-partisan equality at work in the democratic
process!
Lack of Political Influence:
The NPV proponents argue that any state that institutes proportional voting
(EVV) reduces that state’s influence in the presidential election process. This is a
perspective that argues more for political party control than it does for providing
a voting voice for all voting constituents.
Further, the NPV supporters claims that a state offering only a one or two vote
advantage for any candidate is a negative result. EVV argues just the opposite in
that it is recognized that the voting nation, on a state-by-state basis, is often
nearly evenly divided. Thus, states that offer small winning margins for a
candidate are also still providing representation to candidates who do not win the
state majority. This is a positive result, not a negative!
Some may argue that campaigns will ignore states that can produce only one
or two winning electoral vote margins over their primary contenders. Of course,
this is conjecture for it should also be recognized that many states (39 states in
2012) would be in this position if Equal Voice Voting were enacted. It can also be
75
MakeYourVoteCount!
conjectured that campaigning (and funding) will be more evenly spread among
the states to gain those one or two vote margins.
These one or two vote margins, remember, could be realized by any candidate.
The voting will matter and a few votes in any direction could make a difference! It
could also be conjectured that such balance of voting results could encourage the
voting public to vote, encouraging those who recognize their vote is in the
minority to cast their ballots.
State Influence:
The NPV proponents claim that if proportional voting (EVV) were adopted by
a few states, those states would give up their political influence to the remaining
states that do not adopt it. The argument supports political party control rather
than voter participation. Using EVV, Each state would weigh in with their
respective constituent representation, thereby influencing the Electoral College
result in an honest reflection of its voting constituency.
Political party control in presidential races is elusive. Almost all states have
switched political party favorites multiple times in their political history. As an
example, Georgia – noted to be typically voting Republican – voted for Carter
(Democrat) in 1980. In 1992 and 1996 Georgia again went Democrat in their
voting for Clinton. Rather than betting on an all-or-nothing gambit, the voting
public should carry the day and be able to be represented, on a proportional
basis, in every state. To do otherwise disenfranchises voters for a minority party
candidate. In short, it’s Vote Suppression!
Winner-Takes-One:
Some supporters of the NPV bill have criticized proportional voting (EVV) as
a means to shirk the all-or-nothing position for a winner-takes-one result. The
current Electoral College results awards the winning candidate all of a state’s
electoral votes on an all-or-nothing basis. While this is easily criticized, the NPV
supporters would have us believe that the proportional alternative inverts the
results so that each state can only offer a one or two vote advantage for a given
76
MakeYourVoteCount!
candidate. This would cause such states to be of little value for a presidential
candidate.
Let’s look at Oregon as an example.
Oregon has seven electoral votes. In the 2012 election, if EVV had been used,
Democrats (Obama) would have won four while the Republicans (Romney)
would have won three electoral votes, a difference of only one vote. That one vote
margin could easily have been shifted, however. Given that more than 36% of the
registered Oregon voters did not vote in 2012, it can easily be shown that the
Democrats could have won by three votes instead of one. Or vice versa. (Five
votes for Obama to two for Romney, or two votes for Obama and five for
Romney) That’s actually a six-vote difference. However, if political parties
consider this situation among all close election states (39 states would have been
within two votes in 2012), the electoral vote differences would be very substantial
nation-wide.
While an all-or-nothing approach is to be avoided, the claim that EVV is a
winner-takes-one scenario is not at all accurate. The key consideration is that all
voters would be included in the Electoral College results. The correct phrase
would be All-Are-Represented, if EVV were enacted.
Undecided Vote:
The NPV proponents point out that using a proportional vote approach (EVV)
could result in no candidate winning the needed majority (270) of electoral votes.
This would cause the process to go to the House of Representatives to decide.
While this is a true statement, the operative word in the above argument is could.
If EVV were used throughout the nation, it can also be argued that there could be
a larger voter turnout causing wider vote margins in some instances.
It should also be pointed out that IF the presidential race does not pick a clear
winner, our Constitution provides for the House of Representatives to decide the
final outcome. This is accomplished by having each state be represented by one
vote cast by members of the House of Representatives. Thus, it is not simply a
77
MakeYourVoteCount!
majority of one party in the House of Representatives, but a majority of states
represented by a political party that matters in these rare situations.
This has happened before. Andrew Jackson won the popular vote in 1824 but
did not win enough electoral votes to gain a majority. The House conferred and
awarded the presidency to John Quincy Adams, in keeping with the 12th
Constitutional Amendment.
A more recent example is the 2000 Presidential election. If EVV had been
used, the majority of electoral votes would have been awarded to Al Gore. He also
won the majority of the popular votes. However, Gore would have won 268
electoral votes (Bush 267, Nader 3), which is not the 270 electoral vote threshold
needed for a majority win. It should also be pointed out that the nation’s voters
did not turn out well to vote that year. Only 55% of the nation voted.
If the nation is this apathetic for such elections, it can also be argued that our
Constitutional remedy (House vote) is appropriate. In fact, in my opinion, the
Constitutional provision is a solution born out of genius.
NPV Results
The NPV bill promises to be a viable mechanism to elect a President. It will
work. But there are more consequences to consider. Other concerns come to
mind when we consider the NPV bill results.
•
Do the voting results indicate a fair representation of our nation’s lesserpopulated areas? NPV does not.
•
Are voters disenfranchised due to votes not mattering during the process?
NPV will disenfranchise voters, further magnifying Vote Suppression!
•
Will the news media and political parties fairly report the voting results?
NPV cannot claim this.
For the reasons listed above, the National Popular Vote Bill is a poor fix to
a serious problem.
Let’s fix the Electoral College with Equal Voice Voting!
78
MakeYourVoteCount!
CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT VOTING
There has been some discussion about how electoral votes should be decided
by ballots cast within congressional districts. Two concerns surface with this
approach. One is the concern over representation. The other concern is about
opening the door to manipulation. Let’s talk about the issue of fair and balanced
representation first.
We’re fortunate in that we already have good examples to examine to see how
congressional voting works. Maine and Nebraska have been using the
congressional district voting approach for some time. Maine began doing so in
1972. Twenty years later, 1992, Nebraska decided to do the same.
Maine and Nebraska’s congressional district voting approach is better when
compared to the other 48 states. It allows for splitting electoral votes within a
state. However, on the congressional district level, it’s still an all-or-nothing
strategy.
Here’s how it works. One electoral vote is allocated to the candidate who wins
the popular vote within a state’s congressional district. Maine has two
congressional districts and Nebraska has three. Additionally, two electoral votes
are awarded to the candidate who wins the state’s popular vote. These two votes
correlate to the number of Senators the state has.
What does history reveal? Maine has never split its electoral votes since 1972.
Nebraska split its votes 1 to 4 in the 2008 presidential election when its second
congressional district voted for Obama instead of McCain. That’s not a lot of
voting movement.
The concern is that voters, selecting a candidate who does not win the most
popular votes within their congressional district, do not get any representation in
that state’s electoral vote calculation.
To illustrate this, the following graph shows the percentages and number of
voters casting their ballots for either Obama or Romney in the 2012 election in
the states of Maine and Nebraska.
79
MakeYourVoteCount!
Maine
56.3%
42.0%
401,306Votes
292,276Votes
Obama
Romney
Nebraska
0%
38.9%
61.1%
302,081Votes
475,064Votes
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Graph 5: 2012 Maine & Nebraska Voting
Maine’s 292,276 votes for Romney and Nebraska’s 302,081 votes for
Obama were not represented by the Electoral College results. A total of 594,357
voters, or 40.4%, within these two states did not have electoral vote
representation in the 2012 election.
While the attempt to use a more representative Electoral College process was
followed, a significant number of voters were disenfranchised in the most recent
election. The people’s votes were not fully represented (Vote Suppression) by the
electoral votes.
Since we’re looking at history, the following two graphs show how the votes in
Maine and Nebraska were cast for the years 1980 through 2008. Remember, only
Nebraska split off one electoral vote in 2008. All of the other voting was for one
candidate within each state.
80
MakeYourVoteCount!
Maine
2008
57.7%
2004
40.4%
44.6%
2000
53.6%
49.5%
1996
44.6%
53.5%
31.8%
Democrat
1992
38.9%
1988
44.2%
1984
55.8%
38.9%
1980
61.0%
43.0%
0%
20%
Republican
30.5%
46.5%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Graph 6: 1980 – 2008 Maine Voting
Nebraska
2008
41.6%
2004
56.5%
65.9%
2000
32.7%
33.3%
63.1%
1996
35.3%
54.1%
1992
29.5%
46.8%
1988
39.4%
60.5%
Democrat
1984
29.0%
71.0%
1980
26.4%
66.5%
0%
20%
40%
60%
Republican
80%
100%
Graph 7: 1980 – 2008 Nebraska Voting
81
MakeYourVoteCount!
The point of the two graphs above is that though Congressional District
voting was used, a large portion of voters did not matter because their votes did
not reflect an Electoral College result. The following table shows which candidate
won in each of these years for each state:
Table 14: Maine & Nebraska Voting 1980-2012
Maine
Nebraska
1980
Republican
Republican
1984
Republican
Republican
1988
Republican
Republican
1992
Democrat
Republican
1996
Democrat
Republican
2000
Democrat
Republican
2004
Democrat
Republican
2008
Democrat
11Dem/41Rep
2012
Democrat
Republican
Now let’s turn our attention to the second concern, which is that of
manipulation.
Remember how I mentioned that our voting mechanism should be fair and
balanced? Congressional districts are notorious for being manipulated by
whoever represents them. It’s called gerrymandering. The following description,
taken from www.wikipedia.org, describes how the process and the word came
into being:
The word gerrymander (originally written Gerry-mander) was used
for the first time in the Boston Gazette on March 26, 1812. The word was
created in reaction to a redrawing of Massachusetts state Senate election
districts under the then-governor Elbridge Gerry (1744–1814). In 1812,
Governor Gerry signed a bill that redistricted Massachusetts to benefit his
Democratic-Republican Party. When mapped, one of the contorted
districts in the Boston area was said to resemble the shape of a
82
MakeYourVoteCount!
salamander. The term was a portmanteau [combination] of the governor's
last name and the word salamander.
Appearing with the term, and helping to spread and sustain its
popularity, was a political cartoon depicting a strange animal with claws,
wings and a dragon-like head satirizing the map of the odd-shaped
district. This cartoon was most likely drawn by Elkanah Tisdale, an early
19th-century painter, designer, and engraver who was living in Boston at
the time.
Figure 8: Gerrymander Cartoon
The word gerrymander was reprinted numerous times in Federalist
newspapers in Massachusetts, New England, and nationwide during the
remainder of 1812. This suggests some organized activity of the Federalists to
disparage Governor Gerry, in particular, and the growing Democratic Republican Party in general.
Gerrymandering soon began to be used to describe not only the original
Massachusetts example, but also other cases of district-shape manipulation for
83
MakeYourVoteCount!
partisan gain in other states. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the
word's acceptance was marked by its first publication in a dictionary (1848) and
in an encyclopedia (1868).
In other words, congressional districts are often constructed to give the most
favor to the political party that currently holds the most influence. These lines are
redrawn whenever a new national census is taken. The next redrawing of
congressional district borders will occur in 2020. It is one of the primary reasons
that incumbent representatives are so confident they will win the vote, term after
term, to retain their seat in the House of Representatives. Such manipulation to
bend to a controlling power is not a good basis for forming a voting mechanism
for our nation’s Electoral College.
The following page shows a congressional district that has been subjected to
gerrymandering. There are 20 more shown in the Appendix. Democrats currently
hold ten of these districts and Republicans hold ten. The maps are taken from the
wikipedia.org. Notice how convoluted they are (salamanders?) as they strive to
include the party of choice voters and exclude others. Words like Control,
Manipulation, and Unfair should spring to mind.
84
MakeYourVoteCount!
Oregon’s fifth Congressional District
Democrats currently hold Oregon’s fifth congressional district. Notice the
many projections to include areas while allowing neighboring districts to
protrude in on it. The boundaries are not simple or intuitive.
Figure 9: Oregon’s Congressional District #5
Congressional District voting breaks away from the other 48 states but still
fails to serve the citizens well. Many votes cast do not matter in the state electoral
vote results. And, the districts (read: voters) are manipulated so similar political
party voters are kept together within a district to provide more security for the
reigning legislator.
85
MakeYourVoteCount!
EQUAL VOICE VOTING ADVANTAGES
The following is a list of reasons to use the Equal Voice Voting (EVV)
approach:
•
EVV captures the popular vote representation for each state.
•
EVV captures the geographic representation for each state.
•
EVV does not disenfranchise voters and ends Electoral College Vote
Suppression!
•
EVV encourages citizens to vote because their voices are not lost amidst
the dominant party voting in their state.
•
EVV encourages the news media to not declare an early winner, yet
increases the amount of election news to be reported as states report their
respective vote tallies.
•
EVV creates more election news to be reported, enticing voters to be more
involved in the voting process as the results are reported.
•
EVV is based on simple mathematics so it is easy to implement.
•
EVV retains the intent of our nation’s Founding Fathers with Electoral
College results being captured on a state-by-state basis.
•
EVV allows for third (or more) party candidate electoral votes to be
counted.
•
EVV allows for the large number of votes to be reduced to a manageable
number, retaining that aspect of the present Electoral College system.
•
EVV encourages the candidates to campaign in all regions and address all
issues, encouraging greater accountability to our nation’s concerns.
Better Representation
The popular vote and geographic (state) representation was one of the
fundamental concerns of our Founding Fathers. Instead of simply calling for a
popular vote winner, they decided to have states vote, each having its separate
voting result. However, the Electoral College has been used to tally results from
51 separate contests rather than collect the contributing voice (representation) of
all voters from all states.
86
MakeYourVoteCount!
EVV acknowledges the power and importance of the popular vote but does not
leave out the voting sentiment simply due to where people live. EVV also ensures
any viable candidate has the potential to be represented in the final electoral vote
result.
EVV also infers that if voters think their ballots can make a difference, there
will be a greater voter turnout during election time. It can be argued that greater
involvement by our citizenry and a weakened ability by our news media to predeclare a winner causes greater representation and sensitivity to our nation’s
voting conscience during this critical voting process.
Election Stories
A depiction of our United States and a table is provided below to further
illustrate how the EVV approach could have made a difference in the 2012
election. The past nine elections are shown in the Appendix. There you’ll find
how each state participated and how their respective popular votes and total
electoral votes would have been counted if EVV had been used.
2012 Presidential Election Map Review:
The map of the electoral vote state wins below appears balanced (Romney
winning 24 states, Obama 26 states and Washington D.C.). However, Obama won
by a 23.4% margin (332 electoral votes vs. 206 for Romney) using the current
Electoral College voting approach.
87
MakeYourVoteCount!
Figure 10: 2012 Presidential Election Map
Things to consider:
Capturing the votes using the EVV approach reflects the balance revealed by
the popular vote. Obama still wins the election, but the margin is reduced to a
1.86% electoral vote margin with Obama winning by only 10 electoral votes.
You saw the table below earlier but here it highlights how close elections were
on a state-by-state basis in 2012. Eight states (highlighted in gray in the next
table) tied in the number of electoral votes, if EVV had been used. Two states and
Washington D.C. (highlighted in black in the next table) awarded all of their
electoral votes to one candidate. The apparent mandate shown with our current
Electoral College approach disappears, providing more accurate data for
everyone concerned to evaluate the results.
88
MakeYourVoteCount!
Table 15: 2012 Example Election Results
Current Electoral College
States
AL
AK
AZ
AR
CA
CO
CT
DE
DC
FL
GA
HI
ID
IL
IN
IA
KS
KY
LA
ME
MD
MA
MI
MN
MS
MO
MT
NE
NV
NH
NJ
NM
NY
NC
ND
OH
OK
OR
PA
RI
SC
SD
TN
TX
UT
VT
VA
WA
WV
WI
WY
Popular
Vote
Equal Voice Voting
Obama
Electoral Romney
Votes
227,528
3.49
3
5.51
70,977
1.29
1
1.71
177,915
4.93
5
6.07
172,426
2.27
2
3.73
183,334
33.37
33
21.63
265,342
4.72
5
4.28
218,337
4.11
4
2.89
136,008
1.78
2
1.22
79,890
2.78
3
0.22
289,593
14.63
15
14.37
240,662
7.37
7
8.63
106,880
2.87
3
1.13
158,272
1.34
1
2.66
253,436
11.70
12
8.30
231,820
4.91
5
6.09
254,578
3.17
3
2.83
184,440
2.32
2
3.68
220,812
3.08
3
4.92
245,070
3.30
3
4.70
172,048
2.31
2
1.69
247,104
6.26
6
3.74
279,813
6.79
7
4.21
291,947
8.77
9
7.23
286,607
5.39
5
4.61
200,427
2.64
3
3.36
269,399
4.51
5
5.49
155,001
1.28
1
1.72
151,894
1.92
2
3.08
165,269
3.20
3
2.80
177,732
2.11
2
1.89
233,645
8.20
8
5.80
148,391
2.76
3
2.24
210,430
18.42
18
10.58
293,898
7.34
7
7.66
104,094
1.20
1
1.80
293,024
9.18
9
8.82
190,696
2.33
2
4.67
232,571
3.92
4
3.08
274,120
10.53
11
9.47
109,083
2.56
3
1.44
213,723
4.01
4
4.99
118,519
1.22
1
1.78
219,911
4.36
4
6.64
206,585
15.95
16
22.05
150,202
1.53
2
4.47
97,320
2.05
3
0.95
291,054
6.75
7
6.25
228,426
6.86
7
5.14
128,892
1.81
2
3.19
302,270
5.34
5
4.66
79,353
0.86
0
2.14
276
274
262
Popular Vote Percentage
51.39%
Equal Voice Vote Percentage
50.93%
Electoral
Votes
2,047,756
212,930
1,957,065
1,034,553
10,083,387
2,388,082
1,528,359
408,023
239,669
8,398,206
3,850,591
427,520
633,089
5,068,712
2,550,020
1,527,469
1,106,637
1,766,492
1,960,563
688,191
2,471,043
3,077,945
4,671,157
2,866,069
1,202,562
2,693,992
465,003
759,470
991,612
710,928
3,271,033
741,954
6,102,463
4,408,468
312,281
5,274,423
1,334,872
1,627,995
5,482,395
436,332
1,923,505
355,557
2,419,019
7,850,239
901,210
291,959
3,783,704
2,741,115
644,462
3,022,695
238,059
Totals
9
3
11
6
55
9
7
3
3
29
16
4
4
20
11
6
6
8
8
4
10
11
16
10
6
10
3
5
6
4
14
5
29
15
3
18
7
7
20
4
9
3
11
38
6
3
13
12
5
10
3
538
PVV
Obama
Romney
Electoral
Votes
6
2
6
4
22
4
3
1
0
14
9
1
3
8
6
3
4
5
5
2
4
4
7
5
3
5
2
3
3
2
6
2
11
8
2
9
5
3
9
1
5
2
7
22
4
0
6
5
3
5
3
264
48.61%
49.07%
The graphs on the following three pages show the mix of Democratic and
Republican activities within each state for the 2012 election. Rather than having
each state weigh in as either a Democratic or Republican state, you’ll see that
there is a combination of each.
Can you guess what the percentage was for your own state? I suggest you
make a guess and then locate your state in the graphs below. You may be
surprised at what you discover.
89
MakeYourVoteCount!
Alabama
33%
67%
Alaska
33%
67%
Arizona
45%
Arkansas
55%
33%
California
67%
60%
40%
Colorado
55%
45%
ConnecAcut
57%
43%
D.C.
100%
Delaware
0%
67%
Florida
33%
52%
Georgia
Hawaii
56%
75%
Idaho
25%
25%
75%
Illinois
60%
Indiana
40%
45%
Iowa
55%
50%
Kansas
50%
33%
0%
Romney
48%
44%
67%
20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Graph 8: 2012 State Voting by Party Graph 1
90
Obama
MakeYourVoteCount!
The set of states shown here are rather balanced between the political parties.
Please remember that in each state there are political voices that are silenced
(Vote Suppression) with our current voting system. EVV would make those voices
heard!
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
MassachuseHs
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
NewHampshire
NewJersey
NewMexico
NewYork
NorthCarolina
37%
63%
37%
63%
50%
50%
60%
40%
64%
36%
56%
44%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
33%
67%
40%
Romney
60%
50%
50%
50%
50%
57%
43%
60%
40%
62%
38%
47%
53%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Graph 9: 2012 State Voting by Party
91
Obama
MakeYourVoteCount!
Using the current Electoral College approach, Hawaii, Massachusetts,
Nebraska, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, and West Virginia
experienced having every county being carried by only one party. If you looked at
the voting results of those states from that perspective, it would appear that no
votes for the opposing candidate was significant in those respective states.
Review those states (except Vermont and Wyoming) in these graphs and you’ll
quickly see that opposing voters in those states were not so silent! Their votes
were simply suppressed! Though not shown for previous years, similar results
would be experienced.
NorthDakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
RhodeIsland
SouthCarolina
SouthDakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
WestVirginia
Wisconsin
33.3%
66.7%
50%
50%
29%
71%
57%
43%
55%
45%
75%
25%
44%
56%
33%
67%
36%
64%
42%
Obama
Romney
58%
33%
67%
100%
54%
0%
46%
58%
42%
40%
60%
50%
50%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Graph 10: 2012 State Voting by Party Graph 3
92
MakeYourVoteCount!
Equal Voice Results
If Equal Voice Voting had been in place across our country in 2012, the
election map would look like the map below. It shows it would be far more purple
(a mix of colors) than simply red and blue.
Figure 11: 2012 Equal Voice Voting Map
Two states and Washington D.C. (not depicted) voted 100% for one party.
Wyoming would have been 100% for Romney while Vermont and Washington
D.C. would have been 100% for Obama. All others would be a mix, often close to
a 50%/50% split, making the map shown above far more representative of those
who voted than the one shown previously on page three.
What’s Fair?
Our Presidential election process should show that all votes matter in the
final result. There should not be any Vote Suppression! It should not depend
upon in which state they live to have their vote matter. Every viable candidate
should be represented in our election results. Let’s make our elections fair for
everyone by using Equal Voice Voting!
93
MakeYourVoteCount!
WHAT WE CAN DO!
The first step is to be aware that our Electoral College, as it is currently used,
is inadequate. You’ve done that by reading this book. Now it’s time to let others in
on what you’ve learned.
Share the idea with others around you. Family members and friends need to
be made aware of how we’re ill served during Presidential elections and how
Equal Voice Voting can make a difference. One quick way to share this
information with them is to point them to the Equal Voice Voting website link:
http://equalvoicevoting.com. Encourage others to read this book to gain a more
in-depth awareness.
Contact your state and federal representatives, any politically active
organization, any political science and/or journalism and/or law study class, and
any other interested group to further discuss these options. Let them know that
you want our nation to elect its presidents in a more equitable manner than we
have in the past.
I’ve already started this effort. I’ve contacted via email, telephone or by a faceto-face meeting, almost every state legislator in the country. However, every state
legislator does not read all email and many do not attend to information that
comes from out of state. Your direct contact with your own legislators can have a
vital influence.
94
MakeYourVoteCount!
State-by-State Reform
The Equal Voice Voting approach does not require a constitutional
amendment nor does it require every state adopt it at once. Your state can choose
to enable the Equal Voice voting approach as its Electoral College approach,
giving the people in your state the voice and representation they deserve. Help
put an end to the Vote Suppression in your state!
Your state representative can be located on the Internet by simply entering an
inquiry for your state’s legislator in Google or Yahoo, for example. Contact
information is provided for those representing you.
Be aware that some state legislators may be reluctant to make a change within
your state. They may like the advantages EVV offers but they may reason that
starting a bill for state Electoral College reform may be perceived to be politically
risky.
For example, I’ve been asked by some of my state’s Democratic legislators
why I would favor a mechanism that would erode a Democratic advantage
(Oregon often votes Democratic and wins seven electoral votes for the candidate
of the Democratic party.). Their concern may seem valid if only recent elections
are considered. However, Oregon has not always voted for the Democratic
candidate. Will Oregon do so in the next election or three elections in the future?
Clinging to the way we’ve always done it is a very risky gamble. While it may
seem prudent to cling to the seven-vote advantage today, it could easily be erased
to zero in the future. It’s an all-or-nothing toss of the voting dice.
You and your state legislators may be interested in seeing how their state
voting trends have persisted in the past. The figure on the next page and the
following two tables show each state’s voting history for the previous ten elections
(1976-2012). It’s significant to note that 10 states and Washington, D.C. have
consistently voted for the same political party throughout all ten elections.
Thirteen states have switched party allegiance once in those elections, nine states
have switched twice, 13 states have switched three times and three states have
switched four times during those elections. That is a total of 84 political party
changes among 40 states in these ten elections.
95
MakeYourVoteCount!
No Change =
1 Change =
2 Changes =
3 Changes =
4 Changes =
Figure 12: 10 Election Party Changes
The point is that it is difficult to predict if a state has a lock on a given
political party when it comes to Presidential elections. Forfeiting the voice of the
people via true representation in favor of political party control becomes a
gamble that state leaders should not play.
96
MakeYourVoteCount!
Table 16: State Presidential Election Trends
(Alabama through Mississippi)
97
MakeYourVoteCount!
Table 17: State Presidential Election Trends
(Missouri through Wyoming)
98
MakeYourVoteCount!
Constitutional Amendment
Another approach to revising our Electoral College through EVV is to amend
our Constitution. Admittedly, that’s not an easy task. It’s difficult to do because it
requires major national attention and agreement among so many currently in
office. As noted earlier, Wikipedia describes the Constitutional amendment
process as follows:
Article Five of the United States Constitution describes the process
whereby the federal Constitution may be altered.
Amendment proposals may be adopted and sent to the states for
ratification by either:
Two-thirds (supermajority) vote of members present—assuming
that a quorum exists—in both the Senate and the House of Representatives
of the United States Congress;
OR
By a two-thirds (supermajority) vote of a national convention called
by Congress at the request of the legislatures of at least two-thirds (at
present 34) of the states.
Further, the discussions surrounding this issue arise typically around the
time of an election, which is every four years. Once the election has passed, fervor
for the idea for change wanes. Please keep the discussions alive whenever any
election event arises so that the Presidential election, the most important election
of the nation, can employ the Electoral College in a way that’s fair for everyone.
Your national representative to the House of Representatives can be located
by visiting this website: http://www.house.gov/
You can enter your zip code and then be linked to your representative’s
contact information.
99
MakeYourVoteCount!
Similarly, you can locate your state senators (every state has two) by logging
into: http://www.senate.gov/
You can locate your state and the contact information for your senators will
appear.
Contact these people and let them know that you are interested in how our
country votes. Mention that you’ve read this book and would like to be part of the
discussion or at least weigh in with your supportive voice. Every voice counts!
Remember, the change that is proposed in this book requires two basic
actions:
1. Become Aware – Become aware of what happens to your vote and the
votes of those you know. Gain a fuller appreciation of how our Electoral
College actually works.
2. Talk – Include others in discussions about how we elect our President.
Hold discussions and chat up the concerns about our current system.
Hopefully, this book has made you aware of the issues surrounding our
Electoral College and how EVV is a strong remedy for future elections. Perhaps it
has made you a bit uncomfortable with the process. Do something about it! As
the title says:
Make Your Vote Count!
End Vote Suppression in your state!
Fix the Electoral College!
100
MakeYourVoteCount!
APPENDIX A – POPULAR VOTE &
ELECTORAL COLLEGE RESULTS
Look at the solid bars in the graphs on the following pages and notice how
they vary from each other. The blue bars represent the percentage of the popular
votes won by the Democrats and the red bars show how much of the popular vote
was won by the Republicans.
Notice how these solid bars (the popular votes) vary from each other
(variance). In like manner, look at the striped bars. These represent the number
of electoral votes a candidate received. The gray striped bars represent the
Democrat candidates and the black striped bars represent the Republican
candidates. Notice how much these bars vary from each other.
All of the presidential elections from 1980 through 2012 are included in the
Appendix section. In elections that had third party contenders, those candidates
gathered as much as 19% of the popular vote (1992) yet were never represented in
the Electoral College in any of the four elections they were counted in the
examples shown in the Appendix (1980, 1992, 1996, and 2000).
Notice how the popular votes for each candidate compare with the percentage
of Electoral Votes.
Page A-1
MakeYourVoteCount!
2012 variances between the Democratic and Republican parties:
Popular Vote (solid bars) = 3.8%
Electoral Vote (striped bars) = 23.4%
2012
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
51%
61.7%
47.2%
38.3%
Obama % of Popular
Vote
Obama % of
Electoral Vote
Romney % of
Popular Vote
Romney % of
Electoral Vote
Graph A - 1: 2012 Popular & Electoral Voting Graph
Page A-2
MakeYourVoteCount!
2008 variances between the Democratic and Republican parties:
Popular Vote (solid bars) = 6.5%
Electoral Vote (striped bars) = 35.6%
2008
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
52.9%
67.8%
45.6%
32.2%
Obama % of Popular
Vote
Obama % of
Electoral Vote
McCain % of
Popular Vote
McCain % of
Electoral Vote
Graph A - 2: 2008 Popular & Electoral Voting Graph
Page A-3
MakeYourVoteCount!
2004 variances between the Democratic and Republican parties:
Popular Vote (solid bars) = 2.4%
Electoral Vote (striped bars) = 6.4%
2004
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
48.3%
46.8%
50.7%
53.2%
Kerry % of Popular Kerry % of Electoral Bush % of Popular Bush % of Electoral
Vote
Vote
Vote
Vote
Graph A - 3: 2004 Popular & Electoral Voting Graph
Page A-4
MakeYourVoteCount!
2000 variances between the Democratic and Republican parties:
Popular Vote (solid bars) = 0.2%
Electoral Vote (striped bars) = 0.8%
2000
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
48.8%
49.6%
48.6%
50.4%
2.7%
Gore % of
Popular Vote
Gore % of
Electoral Vote
Bush % of
Popular Vote
Bush % of
Electoral Vote
Nader % of
Popular Vote
0.0%
Nader % of
Electoral Vote
Graph A - 4: 2000 Popular & Electoral Voting Graph
Page A-5
MakeYourVoteCount!
1996 variances between the Democratic and Republican parties:
Popular Vote (solid bars) = 8.7%
Electoral Vote (striped bars) = 41%
1996
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
50.1%
70.5%
41.4%
29.5%
8.5%
0.0%
Clinton % of
Popular Vote
Clinton % of
Electoral Vote
Dole % of
Popular Vote
Dole % of
Electoral Vote
Perot % of
Popular Vote
Perot % of
Electoral Vote
Graph A - 5: 1996 Popular & Electoral Voting Graph
Page A-6
MakeYourVoteCount!
1992 variances between the Democratic and Republican parties:
Popular Vote (solid bars) = 5.6%
Electoral Vote (striped bars) = 37.6%
1992
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
43.3%
68.8%
37.7%
31.2%
19%
0.0%
Clinton % of
Popular Vote
Clinton % of
Electoral Vote
Bush % of
Popular Vote
Bush % of
Electoral Vote
Perot % of
Popular Vote
Perot % of
Electoral Vote
Graph A - 6: 1992 Popular & Electoral Voting Graph
Page A-7
MakeYourVoteCount!
1988 variances between the Democratic and Republican parties:
Popular Vote (solid bars) = 7.8%
Electoral Vote (striped bars) = 58.4%
1988
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
46.1%
20.8%
Dukakis % of
Popular Vote
Dukakis % of
Electoral Vote
53.9%
79.2%
Bush % of Popular Bush % of Electoral
Vote
Vote
Graph A - 7: 1988 Popular & Electoral Voting Graph
Page A-8
MakeYourVoteCount!
1984 variances between the Democratic and Republican parties:
Popular Vote (solid bars) = 18.2%
Electoral Vote (striped bars) = 95.2%
1984
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
40.9%
2.4%
59.1%
97.6%
Mondale % of
Popular Vote
Mondale % of
Electoral Vote
Reagon % of Popular
Vote
Reagon % of
Electoral Vote
Graph A - 8: 1984 Popular & Electoral Voting Graph
Page A-9
MakeYourVoteCount!
1980 variances between the Democratic and Republican parties:
Popular Vote (solid bars) = 9.9%
Electoral Vote (striped bars) = 81.8%
1980
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
41.8%
9.1%
51.7%
90.9%
6.5%
0.0%
Carter % of
Popular Vote
Carter % of
Electoral Vote
Reagon % of
Popular Vote
Reagon % of
Electoral Vote
Anderson % of
Popular Vote
Anderson % of
Electoral Vote
Graph A - 9: 1980 Popular & Electoral Voting Graph
Page A-10
MakeYourVoteCount!
APPENDIX B – CITY VOTING
Below are 50 cities depicted in five different graphs showing the percentage of
votes gained by Obama (in blue) or Romney (in red) during the 2012 election.
Notice that the winning party for the state is identified with either a capital “D” or
“R” (Democrat or Republican), respectively.
Note: Exact city voting was not captured for this display. Rather, the key
county each city is in is presented here.
Atlanta,GA(Fulton)R
64.3%
Aus2n,TX(Travis)R
34.5%
60.1%
Bal2moreMD(Bal2more)D
36.2%
87.2%
11.1%
BatonRouge,LA(EastBatonRouge)R
51.8%
46.6%
Birmingham,AL(Jefferson)R
52.5%
46.5%
Obama
Boise,ID(Ada)R
42.3%
53.5%
Boston,MA(Suffolk)D
Romney
77.6%
Chicago,IL(Cook)D
20.8%
74.0%
Charlo>e,NC(Mecklenburg)R
24.6%
60.7%
Cincinna2,OH(Hamilton)
38.2%
52.5%
0%
20%
46.2%
40%
60%
80% 100%
Graph B - 1: 2012 City Voting
Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, and Cincinnati are in states won by Obama.
The other cities are in states won by Romney.
Atlanta, Austin, Baton Rouge, Birmingham, and Charlotte had a majority of
their voters selecting the candidate that did not win the state!
Page B - 1
MakeYourVoteCount!
Cleveland,OH(Cuyahoga)D
69.4%
Columbus,OH(Franklin)D
60.7%
Dallas,TX(Dallas)R
57.1%
29.6%
37.8%
41.7%
Denver,CO(Denver)D
73.6%
24.2%
Detroit,MI(Wayne)D
72.8%
26.1%
Obama
Fairfax,VA(Fairfax)D
59.6%
Ft.Lauderdale,FL(Broward)D
67.1%
Ft.Worth,TX(Tarrant)R
41.4%
Har=ord,CT(Har=ord)D
62.4%
Houston,TX(Harris)R
49.4%
39.1%
Romney
32.2%
57.1%
36.5%
49.3%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Graph B - 2: 2012 City Voting
Dallas, Ft. Worth, and Houston are in states won by Romney. The other
cities are in states won by Obama. Notice how close the voting was in Houston!
This is the closest voting of any of the 50 depicted in these graphs.
Dallas is the only city of these ten that had a majority of its voters selecting the
candidate that did not win the state!
Page B - 2
MakeYourVoteCount!
Indianapolis,IN(Marion)R
KansasCity,KS(Johnson)R
60.3%
40.3%
38.0%
57.7%
LasVegas,NV(Clark)D
56.4%
41.8%
LiQleRock,AR(Pulaski)R
54.7%
43.3%
LosAngeles,CA(LosAngeles)D
Louisville,KT(Jefferson)R
69.7%
27.8%
Obama
54.8%
43.7%
Memphis,TN(Shelby)R
62.6%
36.6%
Miami,FL(Miami-Dade)D
61.6%
37.9%
Minneapolis,MN(Hennepin)D
62.3%
35.3%
Mobile,AL(Mobile)R
45.0%
Romney
54.2%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Graph B - 3: 2012 City Voting
Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Miami, and Minneapolis are in states won by
Obama. The other cities are in states won by Romney.
Indianapolis, Little Rock, Louisville, and Memphis had a majority of their
voters selecting the candidate that did not win the state!
Page B - 3
MakeYourVoteCount!
Montgomery,AL(Montgomery)R
61.8%
Nashville,TN(Davidson)R
37.6%
58.4%
NewOrleans,LA(Orleans)R
39.9%
80.3%
Newark,NJ(Essex)D
17.7%
77.8%
NewYork,NY(Kings)D
21.5%
82.0%
16.9%
Obama
OklahomaCity,OK(Oklahoma)R
41.7%
Orlando,FL(Orange)D
58.3%
58.6%
Philadelphia,PN(Philadelphia)D
40.4%
85.2%
Phoenix,AZ(Maricopa)R
14.0%
43.6%
Pi0sburgh,PN(Allegheny)D
54.3%
56.5%
0%
20%
Romney
42.0%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Graph B - 4: 2012 City Voting
Half of these cities are in states won by Obama and the other half are in
states won by Romney. Newark, New York, Orlando, Philadelphia, and Pittsburgh
are in states won by Obama. The other cities are in states won by Romney.
Montgomery, Nashville, and New Orleans had a majority of their voters
selecting the candidate that did not win the state! New Orleans had the largest
percentage of its population voting for the losing candidate of its state of any
depicted in these 50 cities.
Page B - 4
MakeYourVoteCount!
Portland,OR(Multnomah)D
75.4%
20.6%
Raleigh,NC(Wake)R
54.9%
43.5%
St.Louis,MO(St.Louis)R
56.2%
42.5%
Sacramento,CA(Sacramento)D
58.1%
SanDiego,CA(SanDiego)D
39.2%
52.6%
45.0%
Obama
SanFrancisco,CA(SanFrancisco)D
83.5%
SaltLakeCity,UT(SaltLake)R
38.0%
SanAntonio,TX(Bexar)R
13.0%
58.3%
51.6%
SeaDle,WA(King)D
47.0%
68.7%
Tampa,FL(Hillsborough)D
28.4%
52.7%
0%
20%
Romney
46.0%
40%
60%
80% 100%
Graph B - 5: 2012 City Voting
Raleigh, St. Louis, Salt Lake City, and San Antonio are in states won by
Romney. The other cities are in states won by Obama. San Francisco is the city of
these 50 that shows the highest percentage of voters casting their ballot for the
state-winning candidate. Philadelphia, New York, and New Orleans were also
cities with voting populations that were the most lopsided in their voting.
Page B - 5
MakeYourVoteCount!
APPENDIX C – GERRYMANDERED DISTRICTS
The following 20 pages show congressional districts that are subjected to
gerrymandering. Democrats currently (as of this writing) hold ten of these
districts and Republicans currently hold the other ten of these districts. The maps
are taken from the Wikipedia.org website. Notice how convoluted they are
(salamanders?) as they strive to include the party of choice voters and exclude
others. Words like Control, Manipulation, and Unfair should spring to mind.
Please note that while all images are of the same height on the page, they each
represent different geographical sized areas.
Republicans currently hold Alabama’s 4th Congressional District.
Figure C - 1: Alabama Congressional District #4
Page C - 1
MakeYourVoteCount!
Democrats currently hold Alabama’s 6th Congressional District.
Figure C - 2: Alabama Congressional District #6
Page C - 2
MakeYourVoteCount!
Republicans currently hold Arizona’s 4th Congressional District.
Figure C - 3: Arizona Congressional District #4
Page C - 3
MakeYourVoteCount!
Democrats currently hold Connecticut’s 4th Congressional District.
Figure C - 4: Connecticut Congressional District #4
Page C - 4
MakeYourVoteCount!
Democrats currently hold Florida’s 5th Congressional District.
Figure C - 5: Florida Congressional District #5
Page C - 5
MakeYourVoteCount!
Republicans currently hold Illinois’ 18th Congressional District.
Figure C - 6: Illinois Congressional District #18
Page C - 6
MakeYourVoteCount!
Democrats currently hold Maryland’s 7th Congressional District.
Figure C - 7: Maryland Congressional District #7
Page C - 7
MakeYourVoteCount!
Democrats currently hold Massachusetts’ 4th Congressional District.
Figure C - 8: Massachusetts Congressional District #4
Page C - 8
MakeYourVoteCount!
Democrats currently hold Michigan’s 5th Congressional District.
Figure C - 9: Michigan Congressional District #5
Page C - 9
MakeYourVoteCount!
Republicans currently hold New Jersey’s 5th Congressional District.
Figure C - 10: New Jersey Congressional District #5
Page C - 10
MakeYourVoteCount!
Democrats currently hold New Mexico’s 1st Congressional District.
Figure C - 11: New Mexico Congressional District #1
Page C - 11
MakeYourVoteCount!
Democrats currently hold North Carolina’s 1st Congressional District.
Figure C - 12: North Carolina Congressional District #1
Page C - 12
MakeYourVoteCount!
Republicans currently hold Ohio’s 6th Congressional District.
Figure C - 13: Ohio’s Congressional District #6
Page C - 13
MakeYourVoteCount!
Republicans currently hold Pennsylvania’s 10th Congressional District.
Figure C - 14: Pennsylvania Congressional District #10
Page C - 14
MakeYourVoteCount!
Republicans currently hold Pennsylvania’s 11th Congressional District.
Figure C - 15: Pennsylvania Congressional District #11
Page C - 15
MakeYourVoteCount!
Republicans currently hold Tennessee’s 3rd Congressional District.
Figure C - 16: Tennessee Congressional District #3
Page C - 16
MakeYourVoteCount!
Republicans currently hold Tennessee’s 4th Congressional District.
Figure C - 17: Tennessee Congressional District #4
Page C - 17
MakeYourVoteCount!
Democrats currently hold Texas’ 28th Congressional District.
Figure C - 18: Texas Congressional District #28
Page C - 18
MakeYourVoteCount!
Republicans currently hold West Virginia’s 2nd Congressional District.
Figure C - 19: West Virginia Congressional District #2
Page C - 19
MakeYourVoteCount!
Democrats currently hold Wisconsin’s 3rd Congressional District.
Figure C - 20: Wisconsin Congressional District #3
Page C - 20
MakeYourVoteCount!
APPENDIX D – EQUAL VOICE VOTING RESULTS
The following graphs are shown below to compare the nine example elections
(1980 – 2012) between the popular votes, electoral votes won, and how these
same elections would fare under the Equal Voice Voting (EVV) approach. The
blue bars depict the results for the Democrats; the red bars depict the results for
the Republicans. Some graphs use black bars for 3rd party candidates, when
needed.
As you review the graphs, notice how close in height the popular votes (solid
bars) compare to the electoral votes (vertical striped bars) won if EVV was used.
Then compare these heights with the electoral votes (horizontal striped bars)
from the current Electoral College approach results. Typically, these bars vary
significantly from the other two.
Page D - 1
MakeYourVoteCount!
The 2012 election shows Obama won by a large margin when considering the
Electoral College votes. Yet, his victory was only won by a 3.8% popular vote
margin. The electoral votes won if EVV was used are closer to the popular vote
results.
2012
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
51.1%
51%
Obama % Equal
Voice Vote
Obama %
Popular Vote
61.7%
48.9%
Obama %
Romney % Equal
Electoral Vote
Voice Vote
47.2%
38.3%
Romney %
Popular Vote
Romney %
Electoral Vote
Graph D - 1: 2012 EVV, Popular & Electoral Vote
Variances between parties:
Popular Votes (solid bars) = 51%:47.2% = 3.8%
Electoral Votes (horizontal striped bars) = 61.7%:38.3% = 23.4%
EVV electoral votes (vertical striped bars) = 51.1%:48.9% = 2.2%
Variance between EVVs and Popular Votes:
Democrat = 51.1%:51% = 0.1%
Republican = 48.9%:47.2% = 1.7%
If EVV were used, Obama would have won 53.7% of the electoral votes
compared to 46.3% won by McCain (only a 7.4% variance). Yet the current
Electoral College voting results show that Obama gained twice the electoral votes,
as did McCain.
Page D - 2
MakeYourVoteCount!
2008
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
53.7%
52.9%
Obama % Equal
Voice Vote
Obama %
Popular Vote
67.8%
46.3%
Obama %
McCain % Equal
Electoral Vote
Voice Vote
45.6%
32.2%
McCain %
Popular Vote
McCain %
Electoral Vote
Graph D - 2: 2008 EVV, Popular & Electoral Vote
Variances between parties:
Popular Votes (solid bars) = 52.9%:45.6% = 7.3%
Electoral Votes (horizontal striped bars) = 67.8%:32.2% = 35.6%
EVV electoral votes (vertical striped bars) = 53.7%:46.3% = 7.4%
Variance between EVVs and Popular Votes:
Democrat = 53.7%:52.9% = 0.8%
Republican = 46.3%:45.6% = 0.7%
The variance between the popular votes and the EVV electoral votes is only
0.1% (7.4%-7.3%), yet it was announced that Obama won the race by a large
margin. The win was referred to as a mandate, implying the voting public greatly
supported the Democratic candidate that year.
Page D - 3
MakeYourVoteCount!
2004
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
48.3%
48.3%
46.8%
51.7%
Kerry % Equal Kerry % Popular Kerry % Electoral Bush % Equal
Voice Vote
Vote
Vote
Voice Vote
50.7%
53.2%
Bush % Popular Bush % Electoral
Vote
Vote
Graph D - 3: 2004 EVV, Popular & Electoral Vote
Variances between parties:
Popular Votes (solid bars) = 48.3%:50.7% = 2.4%
Electoral Votes (horizontal striped bars) = 46.8%:53.2% = 6.4%
EVV electoral votes (vertical striped bars) = 48.3%:51.7% = 3.4%
Variance between EVVs and Popular Votes:
Democrat = 48.3%:48.3% = 0%
Republican = 51.7%:50.7% = 1%
2000, 2004 and 2012 are the closest races in terms of variances between
the popular votes and their respective Electoral College results. As you see here,
all six bars range between the 40% and 60% marks. It simply means that the
popular vote and electoral vote totals were more equal between the candidates
than the other six elections shown in these graphs.
Page D - 4
MakeYourVoteCount!
2000
100%
80%
60%
40%
49.8%
48.8%
49.6%
49.6%
48.6%
50.4%
0.6%
2.6%
0.0%
20%
0%
Gore %
Gore %
Equal Voice Popular
Vote
Vote
Gore %
Bush %
Bush %
Electoral Equal Voice Popular
Vote
Vote
Vote
Bush %
Nader % Nader %
Electoral Equal Voice Popular
Vote
Vote
Vote
Nader %
Electoral
Vote
Graph D - 4: 2000 EVV, Popular & Electoral Vote
Variances between parties:
Popular Votes (solid bars) = 48.8%:48.6% = 0.2%
Electoral Votes (horizontal striped bars) = 49.6%:50.4% = 0.8%
EVV electoral votes (vertical striped bars) = 49.8%:49.6% = 0.2%
Variance between EVVs and Popular Votes:
Democrat = 49.8%:49.8% = 0%
Republican = 49.6%:48.6% = 1%
The most contentious race of the nine examples shows that the winning
candidate won the popular vote by only 0.2%, the closest popular vote variance of
any example shown here. The electoral votes were similarly close, having only a
0.8% difference. Gore won the election by only one electoral vote if EVV
had been used! Interestingly, an examination of the data shows that a few
hundred votes made the difference in New Mexico! (See the election comparisons
for 2000 in Appendix E.)
Page D - 5
MakeYourVoteCount!
1996
100%
80%
60%
40%
51.7%
50.1%
70.5%
43.5%
41.4%
29.5%
4.8%
8.5%
0.0%
20%
0%
Clinton % Clinton % Clinton % Dole %
Dole %
Equal
Popular Electoral Equal Voice Popular
Voicel Vote
Vote
Vote
Vote
Vote
Dole %
Perot %
Perot %
Electoral Equal Voice Popular
Vote
Vote
Vote
Perot %
Electoral
Vote
Graph D - 5: 1996 EVV, Popular & Electoral Vote
Variances between parties:
Popular Votes (solid bars) = 50.1%:41.4% = 8.7%
Electoral Votes (horizontal striped bars) = 70.5%:29.5% = 41%
EVV electoral votes (vertical striped bars) = 51.7%:43.5% = 8.2%
Variance between EVVs and Popular Votes:
Democrat = 51.7%:50.1% = 1.6%
Republican = 43.5%:41.4% = 2.1%
Similar to the race in 1992, this election was within an 8.7% margin in
terms of the popular vote. Yet the electoral votes were far more than double for
Clinton as compared to those gained by Dole. Again, Perot earned no electoral
votes but would have realized at least a 4.8% representation with the EVV voting
approach.
Page D - 6
MakeYourVoteCount!
1992
100%
80%
60%
40%
45%
43.3%
68.8%
39.4%
37.7%
31.2%
15.6%
19%
0.0%
20%
0%
Clinton % Clinton % Clinton % Bush %
Bush %
Equal Voice Popular Electoral Equal Voice Popular
Vote
Vote
Vote
Vote
Vote
Bush %
Perot %
Perot %
Electoral Equal Voice Popular
Vote
Vote
Vote
Perot %
Electoral
Vote
Graph D - 6: 1992 EVV, Popular & Electoral Vote
Variances between parties:
Popular Votes (solid bars) = 43.3%:37.7% = 5.6%
Electoral Votes (horizontal striped bars) = 68.8%:31.2% = 37.6%
EVV electoral votes (vertical striped bars) = 45%:39.4% = 6.1%
Variance between EVVs and Popular Votes:
Democrat = 45%:43.3% = 1.7%
Republican = 39.4%:37.7% = 1.7%
There was only a 5.6% popular vote difference between the Democratic
and Republican candidates in 1992 yet Clinton gained more than twice as many
electoral votes as did Bush. Notice how Perot captured almost 20% of the popular
vote yet earned no electoral votes. Using the EVV voting approach, Perot would
have captured 15.6% of the electoral votes.
Page D - 7
MakeYourVoteCount!
1988
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
45.9%
46.1%
20.8%
54.1%
Dukakis % Equal
Voicel Vote
Dukakis %
Popular Vote
Dukakis %
Electoral Vote
Bush % Equal
Voice Vote
53.9%
79.2%
Bush % Popular Bush % Electoral
Vote
Vote
Graph D - 7: 1988 EVV, Popular & Electoral Vote
Variances between parties:
Popular Votes (solid bars) = 46.1%:53.9% = 7.8%
Electoral Votes (horizontal striped bars) = 20.8%:79.2% = 58.4%
EVV electoral votes (vertical striped bars) = 45.9%:54.1% = 8.2%
Variance between EVVs and Popular Votes:
Democrat = 45.9%:46.1% = 0.2%
Republican = 54.1%:53.9% = 0.2%
The Republican candidate collected almost four times as many electoral
votes as did the Democratic candidate, though the popular vote was only 15%
greater. Notice that the electoral votes under the EVV system and the popular
vote variances are only 0.2% between both parties!
Page D - 8
MakeYourVoteCount!
1984
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
40.5%
40.9%
Mondale % Equal
Voice Vote
Mondale %
Popular Vote
2.4%
59.5%
Mondale % Reagon % Equal
Electoral Vote
Voice Vote
59.1%
97.6%
Reagon %
Popular Vote
Reagon %
Electoral Vote
Graph D - 8: 1984 EVV, Popular & Electoral Vote
Variances between parties:
Popular Votes (solid bars) = 40.9%:59.1% = 19.8%
Electoral Votes (horizontal striped bars) = 2.4%:97.6% = 95.2%
EVV electoral votes (vertical striped bars) = 40.5%:59.5% = 19%
Variance between EVVs and Popular Votes:
Democrat = 40.5%:40.9% = 0.4%
Republican = 59.5%:59.1% = 0.4%
This graph shows the highest number of electoral votes cast for one
candidate of the nine examples shown. 95.2% more electoral votes were cast for
the winner though there was less than 20% popular vote difference between the
candidates.
Page D - 9
MakeYourVoteCount!
1980
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
41.4%
41.8%
Carter %
EVV
Electoral
Votes
Carter %
Popular
Vote
9.1%
55.8%
51.7%
90.9%
2.8%
6.5%
0.0%
Carter % Reagon % Reagon % Reagon % Anderson Anderson Anderson
EVV
Electoral
Popular Electoral % Equal % Popular % Electoral
Vote
Electoral
Vote
Vote
Voice Vote
Vote
Vote
Votes
Graph D - 9: 1980 EVV, Popular & Electoral Vote
Variances between parties:
Popular Votes (solid bars) = 41.8%:51.7% = 9.9%
Electoral Votes (horizontal striped bars) = 9.1%:90.9% = 81.8%
EVV electoral votes (vertical striped bars) = 41.4%:55.8% = 14.4%
Variance between EVVs and Popular Votes:
Democrat = 41.4%:41.8% = 0.4%
Republican = 55.8%:51.7% = 4.1%
This 1980 election graph shows the second highest number of electoral
votes (Republican 90.9%) cast for one candidate of the nine examples shown. Yet
there was only a 9.9% variance between the two candidates for the popular vote.
Page D - 10
MakeYourVoteCount!
APPENDIX E – MAPS & DATA OF PAST ELECTIONS
Depictions of our United States and tables are provided below to further
illustrate how the EVV voting approach could have made a difference in the past
nine elections (1980 – 2012). You may wish to compare your own state with those
that border yours, or where your friends and relatives live. Notice how different
elections show different representations.
2008 Presidential Election
Look at the map: The map of the electoral vote state wins below appears
balanced (McCain winning 22 states, Obama 28 states and Washington D.C.).
The map reveals the balance actually tips towards McCain, if you consider the
land area involved. However, Obama won by a 36% margin (365 electoral votes
vs. 173 for McCain), using the current Electoral College voting approach.
Figure E - 1: 2008 Electoral Vote Map
Page E - 1
MakeYourVoteCount!
Things to consider: The electoral vote margin won by the Democrat
candidate (Obama) was greater than a two to one victory over the Republican
candidate (McCain) in 2008. Yet, if the EVV voting approach had been used,
Obama’s electoral vote victory would have been reduced to 40 votes, which is
only 7.44% more than McCain’s victory. Twelve states tied in the number of
electoral votes won if EVV had been used.
Using the current Electoral College approach, Connecticut, Hawaii,
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont experienced having every county
being carried by only one party. Using the EVV voting approach, the voting voice
of those states are split by the following percentages showing many voter votes in
these states were not represented.
ConnecDcut
57%
Hawaii
MassachuseBs
NewHampshire
RhodeIsland
Vermont
43%
75%
67%
25%
33%
Obama
50%
50%
75%
67%
Romney
25%
33%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Graph E - 1: 2008 Selected State Voting
Four states (highlighted in yellow in the next table) tied in the number of
electoral votes under the EVV approach. Only Washington D.C. (highlighted in
beige in the next table) awarded all of its EVV electoral votes to one candidate.
Page E - 2
MakeYourVoteCount!
Table E - 1: 2008 Example Election Results
States
AL
AK
AZ
AR
CA
CO
CT
DE
DC
FL
GA
HI
ID
IL
IN
IA
KS
KY
LA
ME
MD
MA
MI
MN
MS
MO
MT
NE
NV
NH
NJ
NM
NY
NC
ND
OH
OK
OR
PA
RI
SC
SD
TN
TX
UT
VT
VA
WA
WV
WI
WY
Popular
Vote
2,099,819
326,197
2,303,838
1,086,617
13,577,265
2,401,462
1,646,793
412,616
265,853
8,411,861
3,932,158
453,568
658,454
5,528,499
2,756,340
1,537,123
1,238,873
1,827,587
1,960,761
731,163
2,631,596
3,081,069
5,010,299
2,910,369
1,289,939
2,929,111
492,750
801,281
967,848
710,970
3,877,407
830,158
7,640,948
4,310,789
317,738
5,721,815
1,462,661
1,827,864
6,015,476
471,766
1,920,969
381,975
2,601,982
8,087,402
957,590
325,046
3,723,260
3,053,254
714,868
2,983,417
254,658
Totals
Electoral
Votes
9
3
10
6
55
9
7
3
3
27
15
4
4
21
11
7
6
8
9
4
10
12
17
10
6
11
3
5
5
4
15
5
31
15
3
20
7
7
21
4
8
3
11
34
5
3
13
11
5
10
3
538
PVV
Obama
233,313
108,732
230,384
181,103
246,859
266,829
235,256
137,539
88,618
311,550
262,144
113,392
164,614
263,262
250,576
219,589
206,479
228,448
217,862
182,791
263,160
256,756
294,723
291,037
214,990
266,283
164,250
160,256
193,570
177,743
258,494
166,032
246,482
287,386
105,913
286,091
208,952
261,123
286,451
117,942
240,121
127,325
236,544
237,865
191,518
108,349
286,405
277,569
142,974
298,342
84,886
3.49
1.14
4.49
2.33
33.52
4.83
4.24
1.86
2.77
13.75
7.03
2.87
1.44
12.99
5.48
3.77
2.49
3.29
3.59
2.31
6.19
7.42
9.75
5.41
2.58
5.41
1.41
2.08
2.76
2.17
8.57
2.85
19.49
7.46
1.34
10.28
2.40
3.97
11.44
2.51
3.59
1.34
4.60
14.83
1.71
2.02
6.84
6.31
2.13
5.62
0.98
283
Popular Vote Percentage
Equal Voice Vote Percentage
Page E - 3
Obama
Electoral
Votes
3
1
4
2
35
5
4
2
3
14
7
3
1
13
6
4
2
3
4
2
6
8
10
6
3
5
1
2
3
2
9
3
20
8
1
11
2
4
12
3
4
1
5
15
2
2
7
7
2
6
1
289
52.87%
53.72%
McCain
5.43
1.78
5.34
3.52
20.30
4.02
2.68
1.11
0.20
12.99
7.82
1.06
2.45
7.72
5.37
3.11
3.39
4.59
5.27
1.62
3.65
4.32
6.95
4.38
3.37
5.43
1.48
2.83
2.13
1.78
6.24
2.09
11.17
7.41
1.59
9.36
4.60
2.83
9.27
1.40
4.31
1.59
6.25
18.83
3.11
0.91
6.02
4.43
2.78
4.23
1.94
246
McCain
Electoral
Votes
6
2
6
4
20
4
3
1
0
13
8
1
3
8
5
3
4
5
5
2
4
4
7
4
3
6
2
3
2
2
6
2
11
7
2
9
5
3
9
1
4
2
6
19
3
1
6
4
3
4
2
249
45.60%
46.28%
MakeYourVoteCount!
2004 Presidential Election
Look at the map: Kerry’s electoral voting margin was about 6% less than
Bush’s (Bush winning 286 electoral votes to Kerry’s 251). Still, the map below
appears to be overwhelmingly in favor of Bush, suggesting that the margin should
be much greater if it were to accurately reflect the voting results.
Figure E - 2: 2004 Electoral Vote Map
Things to consider: If the EVV voting approach had been used, the
Republican margin of victory would have been 3.34%. The results are hidden, if
you only review the map, as it does not reflect the votes captured. Remember, ten
states evenly split their electoral votes if EVV had been used, with the remaining
states remaining less polarized than what the map above indicates. Ten states
tied in the number of electoral votes won using the EVV approach.
Page E - 4
MakeYourVoteCount!
Using the current Electoral College approach, Hawaii, Massachusetts, and
Rhode Island experienced having every county being carried by only one party.
Using the EVV voting approach, the voting voice of those states are split by the
following percentages showing many votes in these states were not represented:
Hawaii
Massachuse9s
50%
50%
67%
33%
Obama
Romney
RhodeIsland
50%
50%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Graph E - 2: 2004 Selected State Voting
Ten states (highlighted in yellow in the next table) tied in the number of
electoral votes using the EVV approach. Only Washington D.C. (highlighted in
beige in the next table) awarded all of its electoral votes (using EVV) to one
candidate.
Page E - 5
MakeYourVoteCount!
Table E - 2: 2004 Example Election Results
States
AL
AK
AZ
AR
CA
CO
CT
DE
DC
FL
GA
HI
ID
IL
IN
IA
KS
KY
LA
ME
MD
MA
MI
MN
MS
MO
MT
NE
NV
NH
NJ
NM
NY
NC
ND
OH
OK
OR
PA
RI
SC
SD
TN
TX
UT
VT
VA
WA
WV
WI
WY
Popular
Vote
1,883,449
312,598
2,012,585
1,054,945
12,419,857
2,130,330
1,578,769
375,190
227,586
7,609,810
3,301,875
429,013
598,447
5,274,322
2,468,002
1,506,908
1,187,756
1,795,860
1,943,106
740,752
2,386,678
2,912,388
4,839,252
2,828,387
1,152,365
2,731,364
450,445
778,186
829,587
677,738
3,611,691
756,304
7,391,036
3,501,007
312,833
5,627,908
1,463,758
1,836,782
5,769,590
437,134
1,617,730
388,215
2,437,319
7,410,765
927,844
312,309
3,198,367
2,859,084
755,887
2,997,007
243,428
Totals
Electoral
Votes
9
3
10
6
55
9
7
3
3
27
15
4
4
21
11
7
6
8
9
4
10
12
17
10
6
11
3
5
5
4
15
5
31
15
3
20
7
7
21
4
8
3
11
34
5
3
13
11
5
10
3
538
PVV
209,272
104,199
201,259
175,824
225,816
236,703
225,538
125,063
75,862
281,845
220,125
107,253
149,612
251,158
224,364
215,273
197,959
224,483
215,901
185,188
238,668
242,699
284,662
282,839
192,061
248,306
150,148
155,637
165,917
169,435
240,779
151,261
238,421
233,400
104,278
281,395
209,108
262,397
274,742
109,284
202,216
129,405
221,574
217,964
185,569
104,103
246,028
259,917
151,177
299,701
81,143
Kerry
3.32
1.07
4.44
2.67
29.87
4.23
3.80
1.60
2.68
12.71
6.21
2.16
1.21
11.51
4.32
3.45
2.20
3.18
3.80
2.14
5.59
7.43
8.71
5.11
2.39
5.07
1.16
1.63
2.39
2.01
7.94
2.45
18.10
6.54
1.06
9.74
2.41
3.59
10.69
2.38
3.27
1.15
4.68
13.00
1.30
1.77
5.91
5.81
2.16
4.97
0.87
258
Popular Vote Percentage
Equal Voice Vote Percentage
Page E - 6
Kerry
Electoral
Voes
3
1
4
3
31
4
4
2
3
13
6
2
1
12
4
3
2
3
4
2
6
8
9
5
2
5
1
2
2
2
8
2
19
7
1
10
2
4
11
2
3
1
5
13
1
2
6
6
2
5
1
260
48.27%
48.33%
Bush
5.62
1.83
5.49
3.26
24.40
4.65
3.08
1.37
0.28
14.07
8.70
1.81
2.74
9.34
6.59
3.49
3.72
4.76
5.10
1.78
4.29
4.41
8.13
4.76
3.57
5.86
1.77
3.29
2.52
1.95
6.94
2.49
12.43
8.40
1.89
10.16
4.59
3.30
10.17
1.55
4.64
1.80
6.25
20.77
3.58
1.16
6.98
5.02
2.80
4.93
2.07
275
Bush
Electoral
Voes
6
2
6
3
24
5
3
1
0
14
9
2
3
9
7
4
4
5
5
2
4
4
8
5
4
6
2
3
3
2
7
3
12
8
2
10
5
3
10
2
5
2
6
21
4
1
7
5
3
5
2
278
50.73%
51.67%
MakeYourVoteCount!
2000 Presidential Election
Look at the map: The map below shows that 20 states were awarded to
Gore and Bush won the remaining 30. It would appear that the country
overwhelmingly voted for Bush. However, Gore actually won the popular vote.
Bush still edged him out of the race by only four electoral votes! This is the only
race of the nine examples wherein the winning candidate lost the popular vote.
Figure E - 3: 2000 Electoral Vote Map
Things to consider: The race becomes even closer using the EVV
approach because Gore would have won by only one vote! The data shows that a
small increase in voter turnout for Bush in New Mexico would have flipped the
results in his favor. Gore won the deciding vote in New Mexico because of the
adjustment rule for too few electoral votes (using EVV) accrued for the state.
Gore won 286,783 popular votes to Bush’s 286,417. One vote had to be added, as
per the adjustment rule, so it would have been awarded to Gore. Nader won
21,251 votes. The race shows that winning the popular vote generally carries the
day. There were 12 states that tied in the number of electoral votes if they used
the EVV approach.
Page E - 7
MakeYourVoteCount!
Using the current Electoral College approach, Connecticut, Hawaii,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont experienced having
every county being carried by only one party. Using the EVV voting approach, the
voting voice of those states are split by the following percentages showing many
votes in these states were not represented:
ConnecDcut
63%
Hawaii
MassachuseBs
NewHampshire
RhodeIsland
Vermont
38%
75%
67%
25%
33%
Obama
50%
50%
75%
67%
Romney
25%
33%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Graph E - 3: 2000 Selected State Voting
Seven states (highlighted in yellow in the next table) tied in the number of
electoral votes using EVV. Only Washington D.C. (highlighted in beige in the next
table) awarded all of its electoral votes to one candidate.
Page E - 8
MakeYourVoteCount!
Table E - 3: 2000 Example Election Results
Popular
Vote
States
AL
AK
AZ
AR
CA
CO
CT
DE
DC
FL
GA
HI
ID
IL
IN
IA
KS
KY
LA
ME
MD
MA
MI
MN
MS
MO
MT
NE
NV
NH
NJ
NM
NY
NC
ND
OH
OK
OR
PA
RI
SC
SD
TN
TX
UT
VT
VA
WA
WV
WI
WY
1,661,953
220,867
1,323,895
901,072
9,681,799
1,686,976
1,394,186
326,007
188,949
5,922,531
2,505,159
364,603
474,653
4,681,671
2,119,914
1,290,583
1,041,028
1,530,589
1,735,324
637,211
1,915,333
2,660,039
4,158,132
2,404,862
955,830
2,338,835
401,506
647,310
596,492
561,144
3,069,145
594,451
6,182,796
2,843,959
280,794
4,526,078
1,218,661
1,511,276
4,832,174
409,171
1,403,977
309,265
2,053,963
6,361,740
749,554
287,249
2,702,740
1,747,939
631,236
2,571,031
208,095
Totals
Electoral
Votes
9
3
8
6
54
8
8
3
3
25
13
4
4
22
12
7
6
8
9
4
10
12
18
10
7
11
3
5
4
4
15
5
33
14
3
21
8
7
23
4
8
3
11
32
5
3
13
11
5
11
3
538
PVV
184,661
73,622
165,487
150,179
179,293
210,872
174,273
108,669
62,983
236,901
192,705
91,151
118,663
212,803
176,660
184,369
173,505
191,324
192,814
159,303
191,533
221,670
231,007
240,486
136,547
212,621
133,835
129,462
149,123
140,286
204,610
118,890
187,357
203,140
93,598
215,528
152,333
215,897
210,095
102,293
175,497
103,088
186,724
198,804
149,911
95,750
207,903
158,904
126,247
233,730
69,365
Gore
3.79
0.86
3.69
2.78
29.31
3.44
4.53
1.66
2.57
12.29
5.71
2.25
1.17
12.06
5.03
3.44
2.25
3.33
4.10
1.98
5.71
7.26
9.27
4.86
2.92
5.22
1.03
1.67
1.88
1.90
8.45
2.41
19.97
6.09
1.02
9.82
3.11
3.34
11.73
2.47
3.29
1.15
5.24
12.21
1.35
1.55
5.85
5.56
2.31
5.31
0.87
261
Popular Vote Percentage
Equal Voice Vote Percentage
Gore
Electoral
Votes
4
1
4
3
29
3
5
2
3
12
6
2
1
13
5
4
2
3
4
2
6
8
10
5
3
5
1
2
2
2
9
3
20
6
1
10
3
4
12
3
3
1
5
12
1
2
6
6
2
6
1
268
48.77%
49.81%
Bush
5.11
1.83
4.07
3.13
22.62
4.13
3.13
1.26
0.27
12.30
7.29
1.51
2.83
9.46
6.97
3.41
3.54
4.55
4.80
1.78
4.02
3.95
8.38
4.62
4.02
5.59
1.79
3.16
2.02
1.95
6.10
2.41
11.84
7.91
1.88
10.64
4.89
3.31
10.78
1.29
4.59
1.85
5.66
19.10
3.42
1.25
6.86
5.00
2.61
5.29
2.13
262
Bush
Electoral
Votes
5
2
4
3
23
5
3
1
0
13
7
2
3
9
7
3
4
5
5
2
4
4
8
5
4
6
2
3
2
2
6
2
12
8
2
11
5
3
11
1
5
2
6
20
4
1
7
5
3
5
2
267
48.56%
49.63%
Nader
0.10
0.31
0.24
0.09
2.08
0.43
0.34
0.08
0.16
0.41
0.00
0.24
0.00
0.48
0.00
0.15
0.21
0.12
0.11
0.24
0.27
0.78
0.35
0.53
0.06
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.10
0.16
0.45
0.18
1.19
0.00
0.10
0.53
0.00
0.36
0.49
0.24
0.12
0.00
0.11
0.69
0.24
0.21
0.28
0.44
0.08
0.40
0.00
15
Nader
Electoral
Votes
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
2.67%
0.56%
1996 Presidential Election
Look at the map: The 1996 presidential election shows Clinton won 31
states. Yet, he won the popular vote by less than 9%! It’s confusing when one
realizes that Clinton won more than twice the electoral votes than did Dole.
Again, Ross Perot made a difference by capturing over 8.5% of the popular vote,
which was a significant showing by a third-party candidate.
Page E - 9
MakeYourVoteCount!
Figure E - 4: 1996 Electoral Vote Map
Things to consider: The 1996 presidential election becomes very
significant if EVV was used. Instead of enjoying a 41% margin of victory of
electoral votes, Clinton would have seen a much closer race with only an 8.18%
margin win. Even the third-party candidate would show well.
Using the current Electoral College approach, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine,
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont experienced having every county
being carried by only one party. Using the EVV approach, the voting voice of
those states are split by the following percentages showing many votes in these
states were not represented:
Page E - 10
MakeYourVoteCount!
Delaware
67%
33%
Hawaii
75%
25%
Maine
75%
25%
Massachuse=s
73%
27%
RhodeIsland
75%
25%
Vermont
Obama
67%
Romney
33%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Graph E - 4: 1996 Selected State Voting
Seven states (highlighted in yellow in the next table) tied in the number of
electoral votes using the EVV approach. Only Washington D.C. (highlighted in
beige in the next table) awarded all of its EVV electoral votes to one candidate.
Page E - 11
MakeYourVoteCount!
Table E - 4: 1996 Example Election Results
States
Current
Elect. Pop.
Vote
AL
AK
AZ
AR
CA
CO
CT
DE
DC
FL
GA
HI
ID
IL
IN
IA
KS
KY
LA
ME
MD
MA
MI
MN
MS
MO
MT
NE
NV
NH
NJ
NM
NY
NC
ND
OH
OK
OR
PA
RI
SC
SD
TN
TX
UT
VT
VA
WA
WV
WI
WY
1,523,358
229,459
1,387,433
870,471
9,646,062
1,462,629
1,358,372
268,136
179,170
5,273,068
2,281,029
346,313
484,556
4,275,173
2,118,416
1,218,061
1,063,543
1,380,293
1,763,716
585,136
1,763,549
2,516,773
3,807,535
2,144,618
886,082
2,133,139
402,803
671,506
447,204
491,039
3,017,594
538,503
6,193,127
2,501,846
264,470
4,491,312
1,201,208
1,309,014
4,447,972
381,456
1,144,127
321,126
1,878,594
5,574,387
650,005
249,270
2,389,271
2,165,038
633,397
2,144,339
209,250
Totals
Electoral
Votes
9
3
8
6
54
8
8
3
3
25
13
4
4
22
12
7
6
8
9
4
10
12
18
10
7
11
3
5
4
4
15
5
33
14
3
21
8
7
23
4
8
3
11
32
5
3
13
11
5
11
3
538
PVV
169,262
76,486
173,429
145,079
178,631
182,829
169,797
89,379
59,723
210,923
175,464
86,578
121,139
194,326
176,535
174,009
177,257
172,537
195,968
146,284
176,355
209,731
211,530
214,462
126,583
193,922
134,268
134,301
111,801
122,760
201,173
107,701
187,671
178,703
88,157
213,872
150,151
187,002
193,390
95,364
143,016
107,042
170,781
174,200
130,001
83,090
183,790
196,822
126,679
194,940
69,750
Clinton
3.91
1.05
3.77
3.28
28.66
3.67
4.33
1.57
2.65
12.07
6.01
2.37
1.37
12.05
5.03
3.56
2.19
3.69
4.73
2.14
5.48
7.49
9.41
5.22
3.11
5.29
1.25
1.76
1.82
2.01
8.21
2.54
20.01
6.20
1.21
10.04
3.25
3.47
11.46
2.44
3.54
1.30
5.32
14.12
1.70
1.66
5.94
5.71
2.59
5.50
1.12
268
Popular Vote Percentage
Equal Voice Vote Percentage
Clinton
Electoral
Votes
4
1
4
4
29
4
5
2
3
12
6
3
1
12
5
4
2
4
5
3
6
8
9
5
3
5
1
2
2
2
9
3
20
6
1
10
3
4
12
3
4
1
6
14
2
2
6
6
3
6
1
278
50.38%
51.67%
Page E - 12
Dole
4.54
1.60
3.59
2.24
21.43
3.78
2.85
1.11
0.29
10.64
6.16
1.32
2.12
8.17
5.70
2.83
3.29
3.61
3.64
1.27
3.86
3.42
7.00
3.57
3.47
4.59
1.34
2.71
1.78
1.60
5.48
2.16
10.30
6.86
1.42
8.70
3.88
2.88
9.31
1.10
4.01
1.41
5.06
15.71
2.78
0.97
6.19
4.27
1.85
4.33
1.51
224
Dole
Electoral
Votes
5
2
4
2
21
4
3
1
0
11
7
1
3
8
6
3
4
4
4
1
4
3
7
4
4
5
2
3
2
2
5
2
10
8
2
9
5
3
9
1
4
2
5
16
3
1
7
4
2
4
2
234
42.07%
43.49%
Perot
0.54
0.34
0.65
0.48
3.91
0.54
0.82
0.32
0.06
2.29
0.83
0.32
0.52
1.78
1.27
0.60
0.52
0.70
0.63
0.59
0.66
1.08
1.59
1.20
0.41
1.12
0.41
0.53
0.39
0.39
1.30
0.30
2.68
0.94
0.37
2.26
0.87
0.65
2.23
0.46
0.45
0.29
0.62
2.17
0.51
0.37
0.87
1.02
0.57
1.17
0.37
46
Perot
Electoral
Votes
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
3
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
26
7.56%
4.83%
MakeYourVoteCount!
1992 Presidential Election
Look at the map: Bush won 18 states in 1992 and captured a little more
than 37% of the popular vote. Perot won 19% of the popular vote, which means
Clinton only won the popular vote by a 5.6% margin. Still, Clinton more than
doubled the electoral votes won by Bush. This was the most significant thirdparty race run of the nine examples shown, with Perot winning over 19% of the
popular vote.
Figure E - 5: 1992 Electoral Vote Map
Things to consider: The 1992 electoral voting would have been much
narrower if the EVV voting approach had been used. Instead of Clinton winning
by a 2 to 1 margin, he would have realized only a 5.57% margin of victory. This
race had the most states evenly splitting the electoral votes (using EVV) than in
any of the nine examples shown. It becomes even more significant when Ross
Perot’s share of the electoral votes would have been 15.6%!
Using the current Electoral College approach, Hawaii, Maine, and Rhode
Island experienced having every county being carried by only one party. Using
Page E - 13
MakeYourVoteCount!
the EVV voting approach, the voting voice of those states are split by the
following percentages showing many votes in these states were not represented:
Hawaii
Massachuse8s
75%
60%
25%
40%
Obama
Romney
RhodeIsland
75%
25%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Graph E - 5: 1992 Selected State Voting
Eleven states (highlighted in yellow in the next table) tied in the number of
EVVs. Three states and Washington D.C. (highlighted in beige in the next table)
awarded all of their electoral votes (using EVV) to one candidate.
Page E - 14
MakeYourVoteCount!
Table E - 5: 1992 Example Election Results
States
AL
AK
AZ
AR
CA
CO
CT
DE
DC
FL
GA
HI
ID
IL
IN
IA
KS
KY
LA
ME
MD
MA
MI
MN
MS
MO
MT
NE
NV
NH
NJ
NM
NY
NC
ND
OH
OK
OR
PA
RI
SC
SD
TN
TX
UT
VT
VA
WA
WV
WI
WY
Popular
Vote
1,677,472
253,775
1,468,877
942,279
11,047,905
1,558,541
1,609,402
287,580
222,998
5,295,913
2,313,875
369,135
470,053
5,027,961
2,293,729
1,344,712
1,152,743
1,486,226
1,760,835
676,744
1,977,079
2,754,409
4,250,935
2,331,344
973,677
2,383,773
405,939
734,646
497,556
532,861
3,314,900
566,336
6,881,820
2,603,567
306,496
4,915,678
1,385,873
1,451,162
4,933,672
449,945
1,195,893
334,901
1,974,789
6,132,667
709,461
287,697
2,537,806
2,266,051
681,804
2,516,400
198,770
Totals
Electoral
Votes
9
3
8
6
54
8
8
3
3
25
13
4
4
22
12
7
6
8
9
4
10
12
18
10
7
11
3
5
4
4
15
5
33
14
3
21
8
7
23
4
8
3
11
32
5
3
13
11
5
11
3
538
PVV
Clinton
186,386
84,592
183,610
157,047
204,591
194,818
201,175
95,860
74,333
211,837
177,990
92,284
117,513
228,544
191,144
192,102
192,124
185,778
195,648
169,186
197,708
229,534
236,163
233,134
139,097
216,707
135,313
146,929
124,389
133,215
220,993
113,267
208,540
185,969
102,165
234,080
173,234
207,309
214,507
112,486
149,487
111,634
179,526
191,646
141,892
95,899
195,216
206,005
136,361
228,764
66,257
3.70
0.93
2.96
3.22
25.03
3.23
3.39
1.31
2.59
9.78
5.67
1.94
1.17
10.73
4.44
3.05
2.03
3.58
4.17
1.56
5.00
5.74
7.92
4.38
2.88
4.86
1.14
1.48
1.52
1.57
6.50
2.31
16.52
5.99
0.97
8.48
2.73
3.00
10.44
1.90
3.21
1.12
5.20
11.91
1.29
1.39
5.32
4.82
2.43
4.55
1.03
232
Popular Vote Percentage
Equal Voice Vote Percentage
Clinton
Electoral
Votes
4
0
3
4
25
3
3
2
3
10
6
3
1
11
4
3
2
4
4
2
5
6
8
5
3
5
2
1
2
2
7
3
17
6
0
9
3
3
11
3
3
1
5
12
1
3
5
5
3
5
1
242
43.29%
44.98%
Page E - 15
Bush
4.32
1.21
3.12
2.15
17.75
2.89
2.87
1.07
0.28
10.25
5.59
1.48
1.72
7.59
5.18
2.63
2.34
3.32
3.75
1.22
3.58
3.51
6.58
3.21
3.51
3.74
1.07
2.34
1.41
1.52
6.14
1.88
11.25
6.09
1.33
8.09
3.42
2.29
8.35
1.17
3.86
1.22
4.69
13.02
2.27
0.92
5.89
3.55
1.77
4.07
1.20
204
Bush
Electoral
Votes
5
3
3
2
18
3
3
1
0
10
5
1
2
8
6
3
2
3
4
1
4
4
7
3
4
4
1
3
1
2
6
2
11
6
3
8
3
2
8
1
5
2
5
13
3
0
6
4
2
4
2
212
37.69%
39.41%
Perot
0.98
0.87
1.93
0.63
11.22
1.88
1.73
0.62
0.13
4.97
1.74
0.57
1.11
3.68
2.39
1.32
1.63
1.10
1.08
1.22
1.42
2.75
3.49
2.41
0.62
2.39
0.79
1.18
1.07
0.91
2.36
0.81
5.23
1.92
0.70
4.43
1.85
1.71
4.21
0.93
0.93
0.66
1.11
7.07
1.43
0.69
1.79
2.63
0.80
2.38
0.77
102
Perot
Electoral
Votes
0
0
2
0
11
2
2
0
0
5
1
1
1
3
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
3
2
0
2
0
1
1
0
2
0
5
2
0
4
2
2
4
0
0
0
1
7
1
0
2
2
0
2
0
84
19.03%
15.61%
MakeYourVoteCount!
1988 Presidential Election
Look at the map: Dukakis won Only 10 states in 1988. At first glance, that
would seem to be 20% of the nation; yet Dukakis won over 46% of the popular
vote. With such a voter turnout in his favor, it’s rather amazing he captured only
20.8% of the electoral votes. The map shown here does not represent that story!
Figure E - 6: 1988 Electoral Vote Map
Things to consider: Instead of Bush winning the election by more than
a 58% margin in the electoral voting, the EVV voting approach would have
reduced that margin to just a little more than 8%! It’s obvious that a lot of
Democratic voters were essentially disenfranchised in this election.
Page E - 16
MakeYourVoteCount!
Using the current Electoral College approach, Delaware, Nevada, Rhode
Island, and Wyoming experienced having every county being carried by only one
party. Using the EVV voting approach, the voting voice of those states are split by
the following percentages showing many votes in these states were not
represented:
Delaware
33%
Nevada
67%
50%
50%
Obama
RhodeIsland
50%
Wyoming
33%
50%
Romney
67%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Graph E - 6: 1988 Selected State Voting
Thirteen states (highlighted in yellow in the next table) tied in the number
of electoral votes when using the EVV approach. Only Washington D.C.
(highlighted in beige in the next table) awarded all of its electoral votes (using
EVV) to one candidate.
Page E - 17
MakeYourVoteCount!
Table E - 6: 1988 Example Election Results
Popular
Vote
States
AL
AK
AZ
AR
CA
CO
CT
DE
DC
FL
GA
HI
ID
IL
IN
IA
KS
KY
LA
ME
MD
MA
MI
MN
MS
MO
MT
NE
NV
NH
NJ
NM
NY
NC
ND
OH
OK
OR
PA
RI
SC
SD
TN
TX
UT
VT
VA
WA
WV
WI
WY
1,365,082
191,835
1,156,570
815,815
9,757,150
1,349,630
1,426,825
248,286
186,997
4,272,448
1,796,123
350,989
401,153
4,526,879
2,158,406
1,215,912
976,685
1,314,649
1,601,162
550,700
1,702,471
2,596,050
3,641,269
2,071,808
921,811
2,086,572
359,348
657,191
338,778
445,233
3,058,145
514,838
6,429,753
2,127,425
294,298
4,356,178
1,161,790
1,176,332
4,495,031
402,884
976,997
310,975
1,627,027
5,389,577
635,794
240,106
2,168,961
1,837,351
651,081
2,174,293
173,980
Totals
Electoral
Votes
9
3
7
6
47
8
8
3
3
21
12
4
4
24
12
8
7
9
10
4
10
13
20
10
7
11
4
5
4
4
16
5
36
13
3
23
8
7
25
4
8
3
11
29
5
3
12
10
6
11
3
538
PVV
Dukakis
151,676
63,945
165,224
135,969
207,599
168,704
178,353
82,762
62,332
203,450
149,677
87,747
100,288
188,620
179,867
151,989
139,526
146,072
160,116
137,675
170,247
199,696
182,063
207,181
131,687
189,688
89,837
131,438
84,695
111,308
191,134
102,968
178,604
163,648
98,099
189,399
145,224
168,047
179,801
100,721
122,125
103,658
147,912
185,847
127,159
80,035
180,747
183,735
108,514
197,663
57,993
3.62
1.14
2.75
2.57
22.65
3.68
3.79
1.31
2.56
8.14
4.78
2.19
1.47
11.75
4.78
4.41
3.03
3.97
4.48
1.77
4.85
7.02
9.20
5.36
2.76
5.28
1.88
1.97
1.57
1.47
6.89
2.37
18.74
5.44
1.30
10.24
3.33
3.67
12.21
2.24
3.03
1.40
4.60
12.66
1.63
1.45
4.76
5.08
3.14
5.70
1.16
247
Popular Vote Percentage
Equal Voice Vote Percentage
Page E - 18
Dukakis
Electoral
Votes
4
1
3
3
23
4
4
1
3
8
5
2
1
12
5
4
3
4
4
2
5
7
9
5
3
5
2
2
2
1
7
2
19
5
1
10
3
4
12
2
3
1
5
13
2
1
5
5
3
6
1
247
46.10%
45.91%
Bush
5.38
1.86
4.25
3.43
24.35
4.32
4.21
1.69
0.44
12.86
7.22
1.81
2.53
12.25
7.22
3.59
3.97
5.03
5.52
2.23
5.15
5.98
10.80
4.64
4.24
5.72
2.12
3.03
2.43
2.53
9.11
2.63
17.26
7.56
1.70
12.76
4.67
3.33
12.79
1.76
4.97
1.60
6.40
16.34
3.37
1.55
7.24
4.92
2.86
5.30
1.84
291
Bush
Electoral
Votes
5
2
4
3
24
4
4
2
0
13
7
2
3
12
7
4
4
5
6
2
5
6
11
5
4
6
2
3
2
3
9
3
17
8
2
13
5
3
13
2
5
2
6
16
3
2
7
5
3
5
2
291
53.90%
54.09%
MakeYourVoteCount!
1984 Presidential Election
Look at the map: The 1984 election was won by Reagan with 97.6% of the
electoral votes versus Mondale’s 2.4%. Only Minnesota and Washington D.C. was
won by Mondale. Still Mondale won 40.89% of the popular vote, which is not at
all apparent when viewing the map below.
Figure E - 7: 1984 Electoral Vote Map
Things to consider: If the EVV approach had been used, the
percentages would have been 59.48% (Reagan) versus 40.52% (Mondale). It still
would have been a very decisive win, but not one that left much of the populace
wondering how they were so poorly represented in the results.
Page E - 19
MakeYourVoteCount!
Using the current Electoral College approach, Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii,
Idaho, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, Utah, and Wyoming experienced
having every county being carried by only one party. Using the EVV voting
approach, the voting voice of those states are split by the following percentages
showing many votes in these states were not represented:
Alaska 0%
Delaware
100%
33%
Hawaii
Idaho
Nebraska
67%
50%
25%
20%
50%
75%
80%
Nevada
25%
75%
NewHampshire
25%
75%
Utah
Wyoming
20%
33%
Obama
Romney
80%
67%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Graph E - 7: 1984 Selected State Voting
Eight states (highlighted in yellow in the next table) tied in the number of
electoral votes, using the EVV approach. One state (Alaska) and Washington D.C.
(highlighted in beige in the next table) awarded all of their electoral votes (using
EVV) to one candidate.
Page E - 20
MakeYourVoteCount!
Table E - 7: 1984 Example Election Results
Popular
Vote
States
AL
AK
AZ
AR
CA
CO
CT
DE
DC
FL
GA
HI
ID
IL
IN
IA
KS
KY
LA
ME
MD
MA
MI
MN
MS
MO
MT
NE
NV
NH
NJ
NM
NY
NC
ND
OH
OK
OR
PA
RI
SC
SD
TN
TX
UT
VT
VA
WA
WV
WI
WY
1,524,748
200,384
1,015,270
873,420
9,121,357
1,276,792
1,460,474
253,846
209,417
4,177,099
1,775,350
332,032
406,033
4,793,602
2,218,711
1,308,708
1,007,117
1,352,101
1,688,885
551,015
1,667,853
2,550,542
3,781,209
2,068,967
934,569
2,122,771
379,192
646,610
280,425
387,428
3,194,953
508,870
6,784,372
2,170,768
304,765
4,503,999
1,246,610
1,222,179
4,812,454
409,186
959,998
316,380
1,701,926
5,382,704
624,474
231,595
2,133,328
1,850,022
733,608
2,194,324
186,611
Totals
Electoral
Votes
9
3
7
6
47
8
8
3
3
21
12
4
4
24
12
8
7
9
10
4
10
13
20
10
7
11
4
5
4
4
16
5
36
13
3
23
8
7
25
4
8
3
11
29
5
3
12
10
6
11
3
538
PVV
Mondale
169,416
66,795
145,039
145,570
194,071
159,599
182,559
84,615
69,806
198,909
147,946
83,008
101,508
199,733
184,893
163,589
143,874
150,233
168,889
137,754
166,785
196,196
189,060
206,897
133,510
192,979
94,798
129,322
70,106
96,857
199,685
101,774
188,455
166,982
101,588
195,826
155,826
174,597
192,498
102,297
120,000
105,460
154,721
185,610
124,895
77,198
177,777
185,002
122,268
199,484
62,204
3.85
0.93
2.30
2.33
19.66
2.85
3.12
1.20
2.58
7.28
4.78
1.77
1.07
10.45
4.55
3.70
2.31
3.57
3.86
1.56
4.72
6.32
8.09
5.01
2.64
4.40
1.55
1.45
1.31
1.24
6.32
1.98
16.55
4.94
1.03
9.32
2.47
3.07
11.57
1.93
2.87
1.10
4.60
10.50
1.24
1.24
4.48
4.32
2.68
4.99
0.86
219
Popular Vote Percentage
Equal Voice Vote Percentage
Page E - 21
Mondale
Electoral
Votes
4
0
2
2
20
3
3
1
3
7
5
2
1
10
5
4
2
4
4
2
5
6
8
5
3
4
2
1
1
1
6
2
17
5
1
9
2
3
12
2
3
1
5
11
1
1
4
4
3
5
1
218
40.89%
40.52%
Reagan
5.15
2.07
4.70
3.67
27.34
5.15
4.88
1.80
0.42
13.72
7.22
2.23
2.93
13.55
7.45
4.30
4.69
5.43
6.14
2.44
5.28
6.68
11.91
4.99
4.36
6.60
2.45
3.55
2.69
2.76
9.68
3.02
19.45
8.06
1.97
13.68
5.53
3.93
13.43
2.07
5.13
1.90
6.40
18.50
3.76
1.76
7.52
5.68
3.32
6.01
2.14
319
Reagan
Electoral
Votes
5
3
5
4
27
5
5
2
0
14
7
2
3
14
7
4
5
5
6
2
5
7
12
5
4
7
2
4
3
3
10
3
19
8
2
14
6
4
13
2
5
2
6
18
4
2
8
6
3
6
2
320
59.11%
59.48%
MakeYourVoteCount!
1980 Presidential Election
Look at the map: 1980 showed the widest disparity, of the nine elections
shown, between the electoral votes won by the Republicans versus the
Democrats, winning an almost 9 to 1 ratio. Reagan captured 90.89% of the
electoral votes while Carter only received 9.11%. The popular vote, on the other
hand, shows Reagan won by less than 10%!
Figure E - 8: 1980 Electoral Vote Map
Things to consider: Using the EVV voting approach, Reagan’s victory
would have been by 77 electoral votes, closer to a 14% margin instead of over
90%. This is a good example of how the current Electoral College can render an
inaccurate picture of what truly has transpired across the country.
Page E - 22
MakeYourVoteCount!
Using the current Electoral College approach, Delaware, Nevada, Rhode
Island, and Wyoming experienced having every county being carried by only one
party. Using the EVV voting approach, the voting voice of those states are split by
the following percentages showing many voter votes in these states were not
represented:
Idaho
25%
Nebraska
75%
20%
Nevada 0%
NewHampshire
80%
100%
25%
RhodeIsland
Obama
75%
75%
Utah 0%
100%
Wyoming 0%
100%
25%
Romney
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Graph E - 8: 1980 Selected State Voting
Eight states (highlighted in yellow in the next table) tied in the number of
electoral votes, using the EVV approach. Five states (Alaska, Nevada, North
Dakota, Utah and Wyoming) and Washington D.C. (highlighted in beige in the
next table) awarded all of their electoral votes (using EVV) to one candidate.
Page E - 23
MakeYourVoteCount!
Table E - 8: 1980 Example Election Results
Popular
Vote
States
AL
AK
AZ
AR
CA
CO
CT
DE
DC
FL
GA
HI
ID
IL
IN
IA
KS
KY
LA
ME
MD
MA
MI
MN
MS
MO
MT
NE
NV
NH
NJ
NM
NY
NC
ND
OH
OK
OR
PA
RI
SC
SD
TN
TX
UT
VT
VA
WA
WV
WI
WY
1,307,403
139,110
853,483
823,673
8,348,342
1,150,870
1,390,749
233,294
169,575
3,656,118
1,581,178
298,012
427,949
4,686,216
2,211,492
1,300,331
961,193
1,282,818
1,527,651
512,823
1,526,304
2,496,393
3,851,980
2,002,438
882,406
2,083,283
354,127
630,492
239,334
380,262
2,928,553
448,064
6,090,004
1,843,453
296,444
3,984,431
1,135,880
1,140,323
4,488,533
412,954
881,365
323,629
1,606,803
4,503,465
594,237
208,280
1,837,201
1,700,510
733,359
2,231,086
172,199
Totals
Electoral
Votes
9
3
6
6
45
7
8
3
3
17
12
4
4
26
13
8
7
9
10
4
10
14
21
10
7
12
4
5
3
4
17
4
41
13
3
25
8
6
27
4
8
4
10
26
4
3
12
9
6
11
3
538
PVV
145,267
46,370
142,247
137,279
185,519
164,410
173,844
77,765
56,525
215,066
131,765
74,503
106,987
180,239
170,115
162,541
137,313
142,535
152,765
128,206
152,630
178,314
183,428
200,244
126,058
173,607
88,532
126,098
79,778
95,066
172,268
112,016
148,537
141,804
98,815
159,377
141,985
190,054
166,242
103,239
110,171
80,907
160,680
173,210
148,559
69,427
153,100
188,946
122,227
202,826
57,400
Carter
4.38
0.90
1.74
2.90
16.62
2.24
3.12
1.36
2.30
6.60
6.76
1.82
1.03
10.99
4.96
3.13
2.38
4.32
4.64
1.72
4.76
5.93
9.06
4.77
3.41
5.36
1.33
1.32
0.84
1.15
6.66
1.50
18.37
6.17
0.80
11.00
2.83
2.40
11.63
1.92
3.89
1.28
4.87
10.86
0.84
1.18
4.91
3.44
3.01
4.84
0.86
225
Popular Vote Percentage
Equal Voice Vote Percentage
Carter
Electoral
Votes
4
0
2
3
17
2
3
1
3
7
7
2
1
11
5
3
2
4
5
2
6
6
9
6
3
5
1
1
0
1
7
1
18
6
0
11
3
2
12
3
4
1
5
11
0
1
5
3
3
5
0
223
41.81%
41.45%
Page E - 24
Reagan
4.50
1.86
3.72
2.94
24.39
3.97
3.90
1.43
0.41
9.52
4.96
1.75
2.72
13.08
7.38
4.16
4.13
4.46
5.19
1.86
4.46
5.92
10.44
4.36
3.50
6.19
2.34
3.32
1.94
2.33
8.98
2.24
19.48
6.45
1.96
13.84
4.90
3.00
13.61
1.50
3.99
2.45
4.90
14.50
2.96
1.36
6.46
4.58
2.73
5.37
1.93
278
Reagan
Electoral
Votes
5
3
4
3
24
5
5
2
0
10
5
2
3
13
8
5
5
5
5
2
4
6
10
4
4
7
3
4
3
3
9
3
20
7
3
14
5
4
14
1
4
3
5
15
4
2
7
6
3
6
3
300
51.73%
55.76%
Anderson
0.11
0.24
0.54
0.16
3.99
0.79
0.99
0.21
0.29
0.88
0.27
0.43
0.25
1.92
0.66
0.71
0.50
0.22
0.17
0.42
0.78
2.15
1.50
0.87
0.10
0.45
0.33
0.36
0.22
0.52
1.36
0.26
3.15
0.37
0.24
0.16
0.27
0.59
1.76
0.58
0.13
0.26
0.22
0.64
0.20
0.46
0.62
0.98
0.26
0.79
0.21
35
Anderson
Electoral
Votes
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
6.47%
2.79%
MakeYourVoteCount!
APPENDIX F – RESOURCES
1. Getty Images (2013, January 30) Clipart.com 10 Million Downloadable
Images by Subscription! Archived at http://clipart.com
2. Leip, David (2012, December 15, and 2013, January 15) Atlas of U.S.
Presidential Elections. Presidential Election Results for years 1980
through 2012, archived at http://uselectionatlas.org/results/index.html
Note: Tables and data to derive graph results throughout this book were
retrieved from this website.
3. NationalAtlas.gov. (2013, January 15). Printable Maps, archived at
http://www.nationalatlas.gov/printable/congress.html
4. United States House of Representatives. (2013, January 15). Find Your
Representative, archived at http://www.house.gov/
5. United States Senate. (2013, January 15). Senators of the 113th Congress,
archived at
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
6. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (2013, January 15). Gerrymandering,
archived at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering
7. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (2012, December 15). List of U.S. States
by population density, archived at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population_density
Please visit our website at: www.equalvoicevoting.com.
Page F - 1