Evaluating a Potential Electoral College Fix
Spoiler Alert: Majority vote winner-take-all has deficiencies.
A previous article discussed states implementing proportional allocation of Electoral College Votes (ECVs) using the Jefferson/D’Hondt method based on statewide popular vote in lieu of the plurality winner-take-all method. For the example elections, proportional allocation would have resulted in total ECVs being representative of nationwide popular votes. Also, since proportional allocation eliminates winner-take-all, POTUS candidates would have an incentive to campaign in all states rather than focusing on battleground states. However, in too many elections, no candidate would have achieved the majority of ECVs. Proportional allocation is normally implemented for multi-seat large district elections instead of single seat (President) large districts (United States).
According to the United States Constitution, when the ECVs are counted “the person having the greatest number of votes shall be President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed”. Otherwise, the House of Representatives shall choose the President by ballot with the representation from each state having one vote. Since 1964 there have been 538 ECVs allocated to the states based on the results of the national census conducted every ten years. The required majority for the President to be elected by the nationwide voters is 270 ECVs. This article compares states’ use of winner-take-all plurality voting to simulated majority voting for selected presidential elections occurring in the past thirty years. It is assumed that presidential electors comply with state statutes — no faithless electors.
1992 Presidential Election
The 1992 Presidential election was unusual with independent candidate Ross Perot receiving 18.91% of the total popular votes cast. Consequently, Republican nominee George H. W. Bush only received 37.45% of the total votes and no majority of the votes cast in any state. Democratic nominee Bill Clinton only received 43.01% of the total votes and a majority of the votes cast in Arkansas and the District of Columbia. And yet Mr. Clinton received 370 (68.77%) of the ECVs even though approximately 57% of the popular vote was cast for some other candidate. It should be obvious to everyone promoting fair election practices that the current implementation has serious deficiencies when there is a popular third candidate.
Runoff elections are executed in many states when there is no majority winner in a state office primary election. But no state conducts a runoff election when there is no majority winner for governor in the general election. No state in 1992 required a majority vote to award ECVs. What if runoff elections had been conducted in the forty-nine states with no POTUS majority winner? If it is assumed that Perot pulled an equal number of votes from Bush and Clinton, and that Marrou pulled votes only from Bush, then the runoff winner of every state would have received a majority vote, and Clinton would have received 52.46% of the popular vote. However, the ECVs would remain the same with Clinton winning with 370.
2000 Presidential Election
The 2000 Presidential election was a close race between Democratic nominee Al Gore receiving 48.38% of the total popular votes and Republican nominee George W. Bush receiving 47.86%. There was no statewide majority vote winner in Florida, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, and Wisconsin.
Assuming the following for a simulated instant runoff election utilizing the capability of ranked choice voting:
That all of Reform Party Buchanan’s votes would go to Bush;
That all of Libertarian Party Browne’s, Constitution Party Phillips’ and Natural Law Party Hagelin’s votes would go to Bush;
And that all other votes would be exhausted ballots, yields the following table.
2016 Presidential Election
The 2016 Presidential election between Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and Republican nominee Donald Trump was an instance when the national popular vote winner Clinton lost the Electoral College vote to Trump. Clinton received 48.18% of the total popular vote but lost to Trump who only received 46.09%. The main reason for the disparity was that winner-take-all makes no distinction between winning a state with 51% of the vote and winning with 90% of the vote. There were 14 states with no majority winner.
Assuming the following for a simulated instant runoff election utilizing the capability of ranked choice voting:
That 25% of Libertarian Party Johnson’s votes would go to Clinton and15% would go to Trump;
That 25% of Green Party Stein’s votes would go to Clinton, 14% would go to Trump;
That 60% of independent McMullin’s votes would go to Trump;
And that all other votes would be exhausted ballots, yields the following table.
2020 Presidential Election
In spite of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the 2020 Presidential election had the greatest percentage of participation since the 1900 Presidential election. Only four states did not have a POTUS candidate majority vote winner.
The impact of third party/independent candidates was minimal at the national level. However, the results of the Electoral College did not correlate closely with the national popular vote. And the national winner was dependent on the outcome of just a few swing states.
Assuming the following for a simulated instant runoff election utilizing the capability of ranked choice voting:
That 15% of Libertarian Party Jorgensen’s votes would go to Biden and 10% would go to Trump;
That 30% of Green Party Hawkin’s votes would go to Biden and 10% would go to Trump;
And that all other votes would be exhausted ballots, yields the following table.
Professor of law, Edward Foley, at Ohio State University has written a book emphasizing the importance of electing presidents by majority rule. However, there are two significant deficiencies associated with winner-take-all majority voting. The first is the lack of distinction in the Electoral College between a candidate winning a state with 51% of the vote and 90% of the vote. This deficiency is the reason a candidate can win a majority of the ECVs without winning the national popular vote. The second deficiency is the incentive to focus campaigning in the swing states instead of all states. The most desirable fix to the Electoral College would eliminate the above deficiencies.
Possibly, the next article will describe a state implemented ECV allocation method that will fix the above deficiencies and others.
