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

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: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.

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.