Monday, April 9, 2012

Presidential electors ("Electoral College") are anti-democratic

The Constitution of the United States requires that the President be chosen by a small group of people called Electors -- not by popular vote.  In four presidential elections, the winning candidate--by virtue of receiving at least 270 electoral votes--has not been the candidate receiving the most popular votes from the electorate participating in the election.

I wrote about this Constitutional anachronism--and a worthy solution to the problem created by this method of selecting our President--in a posting on February 16 of this year.  The solution is called National Popular Vote.  You can read about it on their web site, or return to my prior posting.

Here's a reason why this should be done that ought to appeal equally to Democrats, Republicans, Independents and all colors and parts of the political spectrum:  the Electoral College is anti-democratic.  In fact, it is so outrageously anti-democratic that by the usual measures of voter representation in this country it would probably be unconstitutional if not for the fact that the U.S. Constitution sets up this system of presidential electors.

Simply put, it means this:  voters in a few small states have much more power in selecting the President of the United States than do the voters in every other state in the country.  That's a non-partisan statement.

This system is outrageously anti-democratic because it gives much more weight to the votes in some states than it does to the votes in other states.  It does this to Republican-leaning states ("red states") in the same way that it does it to Democratic-leaning states ("blue states").  For example, because of the Electoral College, each popular vote in Texas translates into only one-third as much electoral influence as does each popular vote in the District of Columbia.  Likewise, each popular vote in California carries only about one-half the electoral power as does each popular vote in Montana.

That ought to be enough to make voters see red--irrespective of their political affiliation--and demand that the system be changed.  Especially in these days of grass-roots popular politics like the Tea Party and the Occupy movements.

These are the states that are the most short-changed when it comes to the amount of influence that their voters have with the Presidential Electoral College:  California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas and Virginia.  In each of these states, an elector represents at least 600,000 residents.

The states that are disproportionally-powerful in the Electoral College are:  Alaska, Delaware, DC (not a state, but it has electoral votes), North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota and Wyoming.  In each of these cases, an elector represents 300,000 or fewer people.  

The smaller the number of state residents represented by each elector, the greater is the value of each of that state's popular votes in the presidential election.  The larger the number represented by each elector, the weaker is the value of each of that state's popular votes in the presidential election.

Here's the analysis, with population data sourced from the US Census Bureau's Statistical Abstract, and with Presidential Elector data from the National Archives (the green shading shows states that have already adopted the National Popular Vote solution): 

The first three columns are self-explanatory.  The fourth column is the data in column 2 (population) divided by the data in column 3 (number of electors).  The fifth column, as well as the comments about the median value, serve as an illustration of how well the electoral power values are clustered around the median value.  As you can see, with only 18 states within 10% of the median value, there is a great deal of scattering.  That's more proof that the Electoral College is anti-democratic, if any more is needed.

The Presidential Elector system is a whacky way to elect the leader of the world's preeminent democracy.  The problem can be easily fixed by having a few more state legislatures adopt the National Popular Vote legislation.  It seems to me that people in some of the bigger states that are the most disenfranchised would jump on this.  That would be states like Florida, Georgia, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas and Virginia.

I hope that happens before we end up with another President who is elected with the most Electoral College votes but not the most popular votes.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

YAY! Get rid of the Electoral College NOW! All elections should be by popular vote.

toto said...

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in more than 3/4ths of the states that now are just 'spectators' and ignored after the primaries.

When the bill is enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes– enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.

The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%,, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions possessing 132 electoral votes - 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

NationalPopularVote
Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via nationalpopularvoteinc