board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

The Electoral College

Post Reply   Page 1 of 2  [ 21 posts ]
Jump to page 1 2 »
Author Message
Lidless
Post subject: The Electoral College
Posted: Tue 11 Nov , 2008 4:41 pm
Als u het leven te ernstig neemt, mist u de betekenis.
Offline
 
Posts: 8261
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 8:21 pm
Location: London
 
So Obama wins 53.3% of the popular vote yet over 67% of the Electoral Votes? Not to mention the 2000 election. This seems strange for a country that advocates democracy and equal representation. I thought I’d investigate.

There are a few quite good articles that discuss the pros and cons of the Electoral College system better than I could.

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/INFORMAT ... procon.php
http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itdhr/ ... ulness.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Elect ... al_College
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Elect ... al_College

So in summary the presidential election was never designed to be a popular vote (one leg of the ‘checks and balances’ does that – sort of) but a mechanism to garner wide support across diverse geographical areas.

Never mind the election now being dominated by swing states now as opposed to urban areas, I did some analysis on the 2008 results. Oh boy does the present system come at a cost!

In the numbers below:
EC = the number of Electoral College votes

Voters = the number of registered voters as at 2004 – the latest reliable source (http://www.statemaster.com/graph/gov_20 ... red-voters)

Republican / Democrat = the number of votes cast (as of now)

EC Weighting = (Electoral College votes) / (Registered voters), compared with the national average. So in Wyoming a voter has in effect 3 times the effective strength compared with the US as a whole. Wisconsin has the weakest.

[code]
State EC Voters Republican Democrat EC Weighting

Alabama 9 2,418,000 1,264,879 811,764 0.98
Alaska 3 334,000 136,585 80,505 2.37
Arizona 10 2,485,000 1,131,790 948,066 1.06
Arkansas 6 1,328,000 632,672 418,049 1.19
California 55 14,193,000 4,144,693 6,765,199 1.02
Colorado 9 2,307,000 1,020,135 1,216,793 1.03
Connecticut 7 1,695,000 614,584 973,302 1.09
Delaware 3 415,000 152,356 255,394 1.91
Florida 27 8,219,000 3,939,380 4,143,957 0.87
Georgia 15 3,948,000 2,048,244 1,843,452 1.00
Hawaii 4 497,000 120,309 324,918 2.13
Idaho 4 663,000 400,989 235,219 1.59
Illinois 21 6,437,000 1,975,801 3,293,340 0.86
Indiana 11 3,031,000 1,341,667 1,367,503 0.96
Iowa 7 1,674,000 677,508 818,240 1.10
Kansas 6 1,338,000 685,541 499,979 1.18
Kentucky 8 2,231,000 1,050,599 751,515 0.95
Louisiana 9 2,413,000 1,147,603 780,981 0.98
Maine 4 824,000 296,195 421,484 1.28
Maryland 10 2,676,000 938,671 1,579,890 0.99
Massachusetts 12 3,483,000 1,104,284 1,891,083 0.91
Michigan 17 5,364,000 2,044,405 2,867,680 0.84
Minnesota 10 3,080,000 1,275,400 1,573,323 0.86
Mississippi 6 1,510,000 687,266 520,864 1.05
Missouri 11 3,336,000 1,444,289 1,439,321 0.87
Montana 3 519,000 241,816 229,725 1.53
Nebraska 5 918,000 446,039 324,352 1.44
Nevada 5 965,000 411,988 531,884 1.37
New Hampshire 4 716,000 316,937 384,591 1.48
New Jersey 15 4,085,000 1,545,495 2,085,051 0.97
New Mexico 5 936,000 343,820 464,458 1.41
New York 31 8,624,000 2,576,360 4,363,386 0.95
North Carolina 15 4,292,000 2,109,698 2,123,390 0.92
North Dakota 3 412,000 168,523 141,113 1.92
Ohio 20 6,003,000 2,502,218 2,708,988 0.88
Oklahoma 7 1,781,000 959,745 502,294 1.04
Oregon 7 2,049,000 699,673 978,605 0.90
Pennsylvania 21 6,481,000 2,586,496 3,192,316 0.86
Rhode Island 4 522,000 157,317 281,209 2.02
South Carolina 8 2,238,000 1,034,500 862,042 0.94
South Dakota 3 425,000 203,019 170,886 1.86
Tennessee 11 2,739,000 1,487,564 1,093,213 1.06
Texas 34 9,681,000 4,467,748 3,521,164 0.93
Utah 5 1,141,000 555,497 301,771 1.16
Vermont 3 354,000 96,458 203,952 2.24
Virginia 13 3,441,000 1,726,053 1,958,370 1.00
Washington 11 3,133,000 1,098,072 1,548,654 0.93
Washington, D.C. 3 293,000 14,821 210,403 2.70
West Virginia 5 935,000 394,278 301,438 1.41
Wisconsin 10 3,225,000 1,258,181 1,670,474 0.82
Wyoming 3 265,000 160,639 80,496 2.99

Total 538 142,072,000 57,838,800 66,056,046 1.00
[/code]


OK, a bunch of numbers. What does it tell us?

First Past The Post
Firstly, the first past the post system where winner takes all in each state is deeply flawed. Only Maine and Nebraska use a form of proportional representation. In California over 4m people voted Republican but were not represented by any EC delegate. Across the country it added up to 52.3m people being effectively disenfranchised. That’s 42% of the people who voted. In the infamous 2000 election it was 'only' 47.7m people, but that represented 47.0% of all who voted.

Over 40% of the electorate disenfranchised? Whatever the pros and cons of the system, this is too much of a con, in more than one sense of the word.

Of course, there is a systematic flaw in the concept. Technically, and I stress technically, you could have had 11 people vote for one candidate (one in each of the 11 biggest states with no other vote cast), and over 64.7m vote for the other candidate in all the other States – and the 11 people would have won. Somewhat a reduction ad absurdum approach since it simply wouldn’t happen in real life, but it seems strange to have a system where technically it could.

We all know that in 2000 if just 500 voters had voted differently (Florida), Gore would have won the election. What about this year? Well, the minimum number of voters it would have required to vote differently for McCain to have won is just 604,000 - Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia. A majority of the EC, but only 47.7% of the popular vote. If instead of pure votes, we go by easiest swings – ie marginal seats – it’s not that much more. Only 694,000 votes – take New Mexico out of the list and replace it with Minnesota. This time that’s a whopping 47.8% of the popular vote.

Proportional Representation
If each state had apportioned the EC proportionally, Obama would have received 288 EC votes (53.5%) compared with 53.3% of the popular vote. Pretty close considering there is weighting for each state. And what about the 2000 election? Well no candidate would have received a majority (and Nadar would have received 7), it would have gone to the House of Representatives which was Republican at the time so Bush still would have won. Even taking the third party candidates out and apportioning the EC votes based purely on Rep / Dem votes incredibly it would have been a tie (269-269) and would again have gone to the House of Representatives.

Interesting to see that in both years, despite different weightings given to different states, using proportional representation within each state is very close to the overall popular vote.

Rural weighting
I did wonder if the weighting towards rural areas automatically skewed the EC in favour of the Republicans. Rural areas, with the population more spread out, tend to be more self-sufficient, less ‘community-minded’ and therefore tend to lean more to the Republicans. A simple analysis shows there is no significant correlation between the EC weighting and the Republican % in both 2008 and 2000 – even after taking out the anomalous Washington DC.

Of course, the US Senate, since it is just two per state no matter what the population in the state, has even more of a rural weighting and so is even worse.

I make no comment about using such weightings other than to say, well, it feels wrong. I reserve the right to form a more considered opinion later!

Voting Power
I did wonder whether the weightings gave even more power than one might initially think to any one state. Consider the following hypothetical: the US is made up of just two states, Virginia (3,441,000 voters and 13 EC votes from the above table) and Massachusetts (3,483,000 voters and 12 EC votes). Although the latter has more voters, it has no voting power whatsoever since whatever the Virginia voters decide will end up with the majority of the EC votes (13 out of 25). The voting power is Virginia 100% (13 votes), Massachusetts 0% (12 votes).

Let’s add another state into the mix – Rhode Island (522,000 voters and 4 EC votes). This time Virginia has a say in the matter, but no more than the other two! Any combination of two out of the three will produce a majority. The voting power is now Virginia 33% (13 votes), Massachusetts 33% (12 votes), and Rhode Island 33% (4 votes).

So how does it look like for all of the US? Well I ran the model and it turns out that there is no undue influence as a result. In fact the correlation between electoral votes and voting power is 99.8%. Only California has any meaningful voting power over and above the votes (11.4% of the power, 10.22% of the votes).

[ img ]

Conclusion
The Electoral College system certainly needs a fresh rethink. Personally, I’d go with proportional representation within each state, albeit a more direct version than that in Maine and Nebraska. As to the disproportionate weighting by state as a whole, I still have to think about that.

Last edited by Lidless on Tue 11 Nov , 2008 5:44 pm, edited 3 times in total.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
LalaithUrwen
Post subject: Re: The Electoral College
Posted: Tue 11 Nov , 2008 4:56 pm
The Grey Amaretto as Supermega-awesome Proud Heretic Girl
Offline
 
Posts: 21756
Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 3:46 pm
 
This is definitely not an area I absolutely love to think about (numbers make my head hurt!), but I agree that it is time to rethink things. I think proportional representation makes sense, as in Maine and Nevada. (I thought it was Nebraska, but I guess I was wrong.)


Lali

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Lidless
Post subject: Re: The Electoral College
Posted: Tue 11 Nov , 2008 5:00 pm
Als u het leven te ernstig neemt, mist u de betekenis.
Offline
 
Posts: 8261
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 8:21 pm
Location: London
 
Duly corrected. Nebraska it is. :whistle:

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
LalaithUrwen
Post subject: Re: The Electoral College
Posted: Tue 11 Nov , 2008 5:44 pm
The Grey Amaretto as Supermega-awesome Proud Heretic Girl
Offline
 
Posts: 21756
Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 3:46 pm
 
Seriously? :Q I just figured I had the wrong N state with an "a" ending.


Lali

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Legolas the elf
Post subject: Re: The Electoral College
Posted: Thu 13 Nov , 2008 6:18 am
Trudging the road of happy destiny...
Offline
 
Posts: 1712
Joined: Wed 06 Jul , 2005 5:04 pm
Location: Helsinki, Finland
 
Dang, Steve.... :scratch:




Obama won. For now, all is good. Let's talk about this again the next election when/if Sarah Palin runs.


Top
Profile Quote
LalaithUrwen
Post subject: Re: The Electoral College
Posted: Thu 13 Nov , 2008 2:47 pm
The Grey Amaretto as Supermega-awesome Proud Heretic Girl
Offline
 
Posts: 21756
Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 3:46 pm
 
I know you're joking, but it should be discussed now. :) Holby posted a link in another thread (and on HoF) showing which states are working on EC reform. It's very slow-going, as would be expected with bureaucracy.

I will admit that last election I didn't mind the EC because I wanted GWB to get re-elected. :oops: But now I see that it can be very unfair and not the best way to decide who will govern us. The thing is, it needs to be done while no one is running for president, so no one can say it's being done against a particular candidate or party.


Lali

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
The OG Borry
Post subject: Re: The Electoral College
Posted: Fri 14 Nov , 2008 4:44 am
The best things in life are not things
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 2136
Joined: Tue 26 Jul , 2005 10:44 pm
Location: here....<_< yeah here thats Ceres, CA for you stalkers
 
Nice post, always have thought the same but honestly it probably will never change. Mostly it wont change IMO because both parties realize this and know that they don't have to play the full game to win the trophy. Do you know how many times presidential candidates campaign in CA? My guess would be at most a one-two day stop a piece and then its time to move on to more important states.
Borry

_________________

Borry: equality works both ways cheater!
Don: so does not

So I take pictures now, check em out if you'd like. Here you go.


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject: Re: The Electoral College
Posted: Sat 15 Nov , 2008 7:48 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Proportional representation is important for another reason, and that is the fact that winner-take-all effectively prevents third parties from gaining any ground in elections.

If I had to put my finger on why there is no momentum for a shift away from the EC winner-take-all model, it would be the desire by both major parties to keep third parties out of the picture, rather than a desire by thinly populated states to retain their slight advantage.

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
yovargas
Post subject: Re: The Electoral College
Posted: Sun 16 Nov , 2008 12:37 am
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 14774
Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 12:11 pm
 
Jnyusa wrote:
Proportional representation is important for another reason, and that is the fact that winner-take-all effectively prevents third parties from gaining any ground in elections.

If I had to put my finger on why there is no momentum for a shift away from the EC winner-take-all model, it would be the desire by both major parties to keep third parties out of the picture, rather than a desire by thinly populated states to retain their slight advantage.
It hadn't occurred to me before but it was immediately evident to me upon reading Liddy's post. Which, loathing our two party system as much as I do, makes it sound like a great idea to me. But I very honestly don't think it'll ever happen. If 2000 didn't make people frustrated enough to want a change, what possibly could?


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject: Re: The Electoral College
Posted: Sun 16 Nov , 2008 3:30 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
That might be an unexpected side benefit of the Republican Party splitting in half. When it goes (and it will) the money will be on one side and religion will be on the other. But they will have a mutual interest in proportional representation, just as the Libertarians and Greens and Constitutionalists have a mutual interest in it right now.

The $Reps will have the funding for a campaign, and everyone else except registered Democrats will have an interest in seeing it succeed. That may push it through in enough states to matter.

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
sauronsfinger
Post subject: Re: The Electoral College
Posted: Sun 16 Nov , 2008 8:25 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 4336
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 9:28 pm
Location: The real world
 
Regarding third parties in the American system:

There is no doubt that the two parties have structured the political system to benefit themselves. However, even if you were to remove all of those trappings, you still have to face the fact that the American people themselves have rarely shown a fondness for the long struggle for an issue over the instant gratification winning electoral politics and actually electing candidates . Americans are deeply into winning and losing and do not want to fall in the second category. But they will accept that expecting the pendulum to swing back their way eventually and they emerge as winners in future elections. To be a devotee of a third party is to spend much or all of your voting life losing and losing in a really big way.

Think about what happened in 1912 with The Progressives (Bull Moose Party). They had the social flow on their side. They had one of the most popular former Presidents in history as their candidate in Teddy Roosevelt. They won many states and did better than Taft. But they died as a party and were not able to sustain it.

The War took a toll on them. The progressives fragmented badly and that took a toll on them. TR died sooner than anyone expected and there was no one replacement for him.

George Wallace got 46 Electoral votes in 1968 and 13% of the popular vote running on his American Independent Party. They had another run at it in 72 but were pretty much non-entitys after that.

Ross Perot got nearly 20% of the vote but failed to build a true party .

No third party today has shown the slightest inkling of building a true issue party from the bottom up. Not one. The Libertarians are handicapped because their most well known figure actually runs and serves as a Republican.

The history of new parties in America is pretty much one of three versions:
1- they experience success and replace one of the other parties to become a fixture in the two party system--- Republicans
2- they wallow along at a snails pace, occassionaly spiking a bit but pretty much going nowhere: Socialists, Libertarians
3- they are a temporary shooting star behind a popular charismatic personality and fade as the personality does: AIP with Wallace - Dixiecrats with Thurmond - Ross Perot - Ralph Nader.

I see no real future for American third parties as we know them.

_________________

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs. - John Rogers


Top
Profile Quote
Dawnnamira
Post subject: Re: The Electoral College
Posted: Tue 18 Nov , 2008 5:09 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 4766
Joined: Sat 06 May , 2006 9:46 pm
Location: Kentucky
Contact: Website
 
I'm going to regret stepping in, but the discussion should actually be about the electoral college. I had some comments when the thread started and didn't really have time to make them until now.

Lego (I think it was lego, and if it wasn't I apologize) and Lali expressed an attitude that is so prevalent in this country. "Well, my side won so I don't care."

I've seen this attitude in so many places, and it always sickens me to see it. It shouldn't matter who won, if there's a problem and people admit that's a problem it should be fixed. I think proportional representation in the college is a good way to fix it, but I know that it will take work and willingness from everyone to get it changed.

_________________

How strange it is to be anything at all


Top
Profile Quote
Riverthalos
Post subject: Re: The Electoral College
Posted: Tue 18 Nov , 2008 5:16 pm
bioalchemist
Offline
 
Posts: 5205
Joined: Wed 16 Mar , 2005 2:10 am
Location: at a safe distance
 
If it's okay with everyone, we could split the Congressional thing off into a new thread.

_________________

"He attacks. And here I can kill him. But I don't. That's the answer to world peace, people."
-Stickles Shihan


Top
Profile Quote
Ara-anna
Post subject: Re: The Electoral College
Posted: Tue 18 Nov , 2008 5:27 pm
Daydream Believer
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5780
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 11:15 pm
Location: Pac Northwest
 
Riverthalos wrote:
If it's okay with everyone, we could split the Congressional thing off into a new thread.
:pray: please.

_________________

Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in

Five seconds away from the Tetons and Yellowstone


Top
Profile Quote
Onizuka Eikichi
Post subject: Re: The Electoral College
Posted: Tue 18 Nov , 2008 5:30 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 392
Joined: Wed 19 Oct , 2005 9:56 pm
Location: Outside of Causality
Contact: ICQ
 
sauronsfinger wrote:
And it appears that the Libertarians are now taking a page from other extremist groups whose anti-government mantra has been "bleed the beast". In other words, destroy the government and its power by bleeding it dry of money, support and resources.

So the Libertarians want government out of our lives and to reduce its power in our lives. What better way to do it than this ridiculous idea to expand Congress to 10,000 people and thereby destroying Congress as any sort of functioning body.
But it wouldn't make it un-functional, as I have stated. Nor would it be costly, as I have stated. Technology has made such things possible, SF. Stop reiterating the same old excuses.

_________________

冬ながら
空より花の
散り来るは
雲のあなたに
春にやあるらん


Top
Profile Quote
Riverthalos
Post subject: Re: The Electoral College
Posted: Tue 18 Nov , 2008 5:34 pm
bioalchemist
Offline
 
Posts: 5205
Joined: Wed 16 Mar , 2005 2:10 am
Location: at a safe distance
 
Please take the Congress discussion to the Congress thread.

_________________

"He attacks. And here I can kill him. But I don't. That's the answer to world peace, people."
-Stickles Shihan


Top
Profile Quote
LalaithUrwen
Post subject: Re: The Electoral College
Posted: Tue 18 Nov , 2008 6:08 pm
The Grey Amaretto as Supermega-awesome Proud Heretic Girl
Offline
 
Posts: 21756
Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 3:46 pm
 
Dawnnamira wrote:

Lego (I think it was lego, and if it wasn't I apologize) and Lali expressed an attitude that is so prevalent in this country. "Well, my side won so I don't care."

I've seen this attitude in so many places, and it always sickens me to see it. It shouldn't matter who won, if there's a problem and people admit that's a problem it should be fixed. I think proportional representation in the college is a good way to fix it, but I know that it will take work and willingness from everyone to get it changed.
To be fair, I did say I was embarrassed by that attitude. :(

An attitude I no longer have, btw. I had never given it thought till the last election, to be honest.


Lali

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Dawnnamira
Post subject: Re: The Electoral College
Posted: Tue 18 Nov , 2008 6:23 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 4766
Joined: Sat 06 May , 2006 9:46 pm
Location: Kentucky
Contact: Website
 
Okay, I was going off my memories and they were a little foggy about who had said what about it. I probably should've looked back (okay, well, I definitely should've) but I was sneaking in a post right before class and didn't have time. :oops:

_________________

How strange it is to be anything at all


Top
Profile Quote
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Post subject: Re: The Electoral College
Posted: Tue 18 Nov , 2008 8:16 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3348
Joined: Mon 15 Aug , 2005 3:48 am
Location: Planet Earth
 
Riverthalos wrote:
If it's okay with everyone, we could split the Congressional thing off into a new thread.
One of the posts in the new thread could theoretically also be here because it discussed the relationship between the size of the congress and the size of the EC. Increasing one increases the other, and that would make the EC more representative. So would the Maine system of dividing the electors.

_________________

It is a myth that coercion is necessary in order to force people to get along together, but it is a persistent myth because it feeds a desire many people have. That desire is to be able to justify hurting people who have done nothing other than offend them in some way.

Last edited by Cenedril_Gildinaur on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total


Top
Profile Quote
Riverthalos
Post subject: Re: The Electoral College
Posted: Tue 18 Nov , 2008 8:18 pm
bioalchemist
Offline
 
Posts: 5205
Joined: Wed 16 Mar , 2005 2:10 am
Location: at a safe distance
 
Well, it's not and I'm not going to try any more thread gymnastics.

_________________

"He attacks. And here I can kill him. But I don't. That's the answer to world peace, people."
-Stickles Shihan


Top
Profile Quote
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 1 of 2  [ 21 posts ]
Return to “The Symposium” | Jump to page 1 2 »
Jump to: