Analyzing the Electoral College

cft_128 writes "David S. Bennahum of has an article that breaks down the numbers in the electoral college, backing up his original 'One Voter One Vote' talk (listen to the mp4). In summary, a vote in Wyoming (has the smallest number of voters per elector) is worth 2.6 votes in Pennsylvania (has the largest number of voters per elector). He has some PDFs of charts, an outline of the talk and a spreadsheet."

Comments

Not the best way to look at it

[jbarr]

While this information may be "true", there still remains a misunderstanding about just how a U.S. President is elected. The point of the Electoral College is not to give individual votes different "weights" (though that may be the effect) but to provide a method of giving States fair representation. The general public needs to understand that U.S. Presidents are NOT elected (or defeated) by majority popular vote but that they are voting for Electors who, in turn, cast THEIR votes for the President at the State level. And to further complicate matters, States have different laws governing how electors are assigned and selected.

This is not to say that the Electoral College is the best system, but we need to remember that if switch to a strict popular vote, then Smalltown, USA or Smallstate, USA would never get fair representation.

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[Minna Kirai]

The point of the Electoral College is not to give individual votes different "weights" (though that may be the effect) but to provide a method of giving States fair representation.

True. But aside from the force of tradition, it's hard to defend why we need to enforce fairness amoung states, since states are not alive. Shouldn't we care more about actual people than states?

Back when the Constitution was proposed, it was seeking approval from each state, so it's understandable that a compromise was made to attract smaller states. But just because we know there was a pragmatic reason for it once, doesn't mean it's the best thing to continue with.

The general public needs to understand that U.S. Presidents are NOT elected (or defeated) by majority popular vote

Everyone (besides a scattering of idiots) knows this. That's not the question. He's not asking how things are now, but how they should be. Imagine you were building a semi-democratic nation from a blank slate (hmm, that's a hobby of President Bush...). Would you try to make each citizen's vote equally powerful, or give extra-weight to the residents of certain areas?

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[KilobyteKnight]

True. But aside from the force of tradition, it's hard to defend why we need to enforce fairness amoung states, since states are not alive. Shouldn't we care more about actual people than states?

You fail to mention one of the main reasons the states choose the President. The Federal government is meant to govern the states, not the people. The states are partially autonomous. The reason for that is to get the direct governance closer to the people, where the people have more control over the government directly affecting them.

The US Civil War shifted more power to the federal government; contrary to popular opinion, it wasn't just about slavery. Yet the laws and the Constitution did not change. The years since the Civil War have shown an increasing level of power grabs from the federal government.

The fact that control of the government has been slipping away from the local level is not, I believe, a good reason to say that more control should be shifted that direction.

In contrast to you opinion, I believe the people are better represented by moving the power back down to the State, County, and local level. Let them decide what is best for their State, and the State will represent them Federally.

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[barawn]

True. But aside from the force of tradition, it's hard to defend why we need to enforce fairness amoung states, since states are not alive. Shouldn't we care more about actual people than states?

No.

For one, it avoids tyranny of the majority - something that's very, very difficult to deal with. For two, it allows a more even distribution of resources, and allows the country to utilize its resources efficiently.

The problem is pretty simple - people in communities tend to vote similarly, because they have the same concerns. People in California are less likely to be concerned about farmers in Iowa, for instance. Equal voting would mean that California would far, far outrank Iowa (more than it does). But that would also imply that Iowa's not important - and it is. Neglecting Iowa at the expense of California would mean that you'd essentially create a mecca of civilization, surrounded by an expanse of decaying towns.

This is exactly the case in a lot of other countries - specifically, Argentina, where Buenos Aires is akin to a first-world country, and everywhere else might as well be a third world country.

(Point of note: it only ensures fairness among states in that it gives two votes per state, and has a minimum number of representatives of one. Other than that, population reigns. Hence the reason why Wyoming ranks so high - because the population's nothing.)

Re:Not the best way to look at it

[Minna Kirai]

For one, it avoids tyranny of the majority

Funny thing is that the Electoral College system creates tyranny of the majority- within each state.

Let's use Texas as an example (although something similar happens in most states). There are a majority of Republicans and a minority of Democrats. When they vote for President, however, ALL the electoral votes go to Bush, instead of the Democrats sending their 30% to Kerry.

But that would also imply that Iowa's not important - and it is.

If Iowa was really important, then the voters in California would see that (especially when they start paying those farmers for food).

Let's think of some other cases where something important is represented by only a minority of the population...

You know what? I think that the USA is unfairly biased towards the uneducated. Equal voting means that high-school graduates far, far outrank PhDs. But that implies that learned people aren't important- and they are. Neglecting collegians in favor of ignoramuses would mean creating a blanket of idiocy, sinking the country towards the lowest common denominator. So I suggest multipling each person's vote by the number of diploma's she's recieved.

Also, CEOs and entrepeneurs are the drivers of economic growth- they push the creation of wealth that benefits everyone. Let's give business owners one extra vote per $250,000 annual income.

How can you attack my proposals, while defending your own? They have the same basis- a person deserves more power, because he's got more of something- real estate, or education, or money, or whatever.

Neglecting Iowa at the expense of California would mean that you'd essentially create a mecca of civilization, surrounded by an expanse of decaying towns.

If that's where fairness leads, then so be it. If equal voting power and equal ability to participate in the free market aren't enough to give those towns viability, then let them die.

PS. The use of the word "expense" in your post was completely nonsensical. In that sentence, "at the expense" should've been "in favor".

one of the points of the electoral college

[mzs]

The smaller more rural states were concerned about being dominated by the larger states with cities in the national arena. It was seen that the interests of the rural and city populations would be different. The scheme of the Senate with two votes per state regardless of population and the two to three bonus (there are no fractional electors after-all, consider this as round-off error depending on where the state falls in relation to other states in the last census) electors for smaller states was devised in part because of that concern.

David is from NY, a state with a number of large cities and he feels underrepresented, but consider the point of view of farmers and ranchers. We can have raging debates ad nausea for example about whether the federal government does too much or too little to assist farmers and ranchers, but the fact of the matter is that if it were not for the systems in place to grant disproportionate weight to rural areas, there would indeed be less aid.

Also, is there really a surprise that cities tend Democratic and rural areas Republican? Again this seems to be sour grapes from David based on his comments.

Yet another Mobocrat

[CodeWanker]

The electoral college is designed to defend our Federal system: a nation made up of separate states. Saying that the electoral college is not fair is like saying the bicameral legislature is not fair: after all, why don't we trust the house of representatives to make laws free from the interference of the inordinately powerful votes of the small states' senators?

The argument this guy is making ignores the fact that our system is based on one of the most successful compromises in history: many disparate states sacrificing some aspects of sovereignty to form a single nation. Our constitution is set up so that the states choose the president, not the undifferentiated mass of the people. That means that there is intrinsic power in being a state, no matter how small. Article 2 section 1 clause 2 of the united states constitution determines how members of the electoral college are chosen: 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.

So you see, the number is driven primarily by the population of the state (as the number of the representatives of the lower house of congress is) with a guaranteed minimum of votes to make sure each state gets a say in the process.

Arguing for a number driven entirely by popular vote ignores the realities of separate states in our Federation, and invites secession and the possible dissolution of our nation.

For the slower folks out there, I'll put the punchline here: the dissolution of the United States of America would be so bad for the stability, prosperity, and standard of living for the people of Earth that there aren't words strong enough to convey it.

Re:Yet another Mobocrat

[Minna Kirai]

The electoral college is designed to defend our Federal system: a nation made up of separate states.

Yeah, because citizens today really have a greater loyalty to Georgia than the USA.

That means that there is intrinsic power in being a state, no matter how small

Stating the obvious doesn't prove it is good, only that it is.

Arguing for a number driven entirely by popular vote ignores the realities of separate states in our Federation, and invites secession and the possible dissolution of our nation.

Right. That non-popular vote sure has done a good job at preventing secession.

the dissolution of the United States of America would be so bad for the stability, prosperity, and standard of living for the people of Earth that there aren't words strong enough to convey it.

If that's as obviously true as you say, then nobody will vote for secession, even in a popular election.

The electoral college is less of a problem...

[0x0d0a]

The electoral college is less of a problem than the fact that we have one vote, one choice. We can't preferentially vote, there's no instant run-off, and so our incentive is always to use our sole vote for the first candidate or the second candidate.

I mean, there are issues with the electoral college, sure, but nothing really compares to the "single choice" model -- *that* is just screwed up.

Re:It's worse than that.

[dario_moreno]

that is, depending on the whim of the Diebold machine operator, of course.

A Representative Republic, Not a Democracy

[stankulp]

Democracy is exactly what the founders sought to avoid when they framed the Constitution.

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

A democracy is eternally threatened by the power of stupid people in large numbers.

Our form of government is a "representative republic," in which all of the citizens choose a few of their fellow citizens to represent them in the legislature. These representatives are able to make more informed decisions than the mob rule that is democracy.

The name of our country is the "United States." When the United States was formed from the original thirteen colonies, each of these colonies intended to maintain their own autonomy and internal governments.

Each state in the union was intended to be a sovereign governmental entity. The centralized powers of the common federal government binding these united states was intended to be limited to powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

In other words, the citizens of the United States federal government are the individual states. It is they who are voting for a President, not the individual citizens of the federation.

That's why most states have a "winner take all" policy for their electoral votes.

The last thing on earth the founders intended was "one voter, one vote," because that is democratic mob rule.

Wrong, in at least two ways

[swillden]

The author of the article needs to do some research in both the history and the mathematics of the electoral college.

From the historical perspective, what the author claims is a problem is *exactly* what was intended by the founding fathers. They were afraid that large, populous states would dominate small states so they made an explicit attempt to counter that large-state dominance.

From a mathematical perspective, Bennahaum is wrong about the effect of the electoral college, and so were the founders. The reason he's wrong is that the method he's using for analyzing the power of a vote -- calculating each voter's "share" of an electoral vote -- is inadequate and fails to account for the fact that most states (all but Vermont, I think) allocate their electoral votes as a bloc.

A better measure of voting power is the Bahnzaf Power Index, which defines the power of a vote as the probability that that vote will "swing" the election. In the case of the electoral college that means you have to do a two-level analysis. For each state, you have to calculate the probability that a single vote in that state will swing that state's electoral votes from one candidate to another. Then, for each state you have to calculate the probability that that state's electoral votes will swing the election.

What comes out of this analysis is the discovery that the voters in the smallest states have far *less* power than the voters in large states. We saw evidence of this in 2000: Florida was not the only state with a very tight election but no one bothered fighting (much) about the others because they were smaller states and didn't matter. Whichever way Florida's 25 votes would win, regardless of the other outcomes.

That said, more recent statistical analysis (which I can't find right now, but there are some papers on the web) that takes into account the current structure of political power in the United States shows that, in fact, the net effect of the electoral college is pretty close to zero. Beyond the math, history shows this pretty clearly as well: There have only been three presidential elections in the 200-year history of the US where the electoral college produced a different result than a purely popular vote would have.

In my opinion, the founders were right about the need for something to shift power to smaller states, because as a resident of a smaller state it's quite clear that our voices are completely irrelevant. So, if you want to fix the electoral college, you should just modify it so that states allocate their electoral votes proportionally, based on the votes cast in that state. That will (mostly) eliminate the bloc voting effect while retaining the balancing feature that has, unfortunately, never worked.

What would it take to scrap it?

[jfruhlinger]

Here's an interesting question for you all. What do you think it would take to get enough political willpower in the U.S. to scrap this system?

Four years ago, I would have said "Have someone lose the popular vote but win the electoral vote." Obviously I was wrong. But 2000 was a special case -- all the controversy swirling around Florida meant that by the time things were finally settled, no one wanted to think or hear about presidential elections anymore. In fact, there are any number of both Bush and Gore supporters from 2000 who probably don't even know, or quickly forgot, that Gore came in first in the popular vote overall.

So, what if this year the same thing happens, but the parties reverse -- Kerry wins the Electoral College (and the presidency), Bush wins the popular vote? Would the two parties see the last two elections as enough impetus to change or scrap the EC? Even if the national parties agreed, could they enforce party discipline on the state level to push the necessary constitutional changes through the state legislatures?

For my personal opinion -- I say scrap it, or at least modify it so that the whole country does a proportional or by-congressional-district apportionment like Maine and Nebraska. I know all the arguments about federalism -- I just don't find them that persuasive or relevant. The bottom line is that the Presidency and the U.S. central government are now so powerful, and so intrusive in people's lives, that to give some U.S. citizens extra voting power just because of where they happen to live extremely undemocratic. And yes, with modern American mobility, it *is* a matter of "where they happen to live" -- people move across state lines all the time, and I don't think loyalty to one's home state is anywhere near what it used to be.

In addition, several of the founding concepts of the system seem to be to flawed or no longer relevant. States of a similar size don't necessarily have similar interestes -- compare D.C. and Wyoming (3 EVs), Maryland and Arizona (10 EVs), New York and Texas (31-34 EVs). And states don't necessarily have monolithic interests -- New York and California both contains regions with wildly different demographic and political profiles.

jf