Our understanding of the power of the electoral college in presidential elections is wrong.

[AdamWho]

There are people saying the Electoral College should be eliminated however that would require a constitutional amendment and that is a non-starter. The idea of making the Electoral College more proportional to the population is an OLD idea that I will analyze here.


The Electoral College gives more power to small states when it comes to representation in congress because there are 2 senators from each state regardless of population. Hence, states like Wyoming have an Electoral College vote for every ~200k people, where California has one for every ~718K people.

This is unfair to voters in larger states (usually thought of as "Blue") but it seen as necessary to protect the interests of smaller states (usually seen as "Red").


But all of this is wrong when it comes to the presidential election


When you add up all the population and EC for red and blue states, the "electoral power" of the red and blue states are as follows

Current system

                 Dem                 Rep                   Total
Population  170,117,705 	 158,182,839 	 328,300,544 
EC             279                   259                   538 
Pop/EC      609,741             610,745             610,224

Notice that the Blue states actually have more electoral power (lower Pop/EC) when it comes to voting in a President than the red states. This is because there are several small Blue states and several large Red states which more than balances out the small state effect.

Lets imagine a more fair system where each state would have the same electoral power. The average electoral power is 511,407 (population/EC). If each state had exactly the same electoral power (one electoral college vote per 511,407 people) then the "electoral power" of the red and blue states are as follows


Equal System

                 Dem	         Rep	                 Total
Population	 170,117,705 	 158,182,839 	 328,300,544 
EC	         316 	         322 	         637 
Pop/EC       538,741            491,781             515,044

Notice that the power of the Blue states is now actually lower (higher pop/EC) than the Red states.

What this means is that changing the Electoral college to make it equal by population (rather than eliminating it) wouldn't make it better match popular vote which favors Democrats.

Here is an excel spreadsheet with my data: http://s000.tinyupload.com/?file_id=07038117244682710962

 

[ronburgundy]

There are people saying the Electoral College should be eliminated however that would require a constitutional amendment and that is a non-starter. The idea of making the Electoral College more proportional to the population is an OLD idea that I will analyze here.


The Electoral College gives more power to small states when it comes to representation in congress because there are 2 senators from each state regardless of population. Hence, states like Wyoming have an Electoral College vote for every ~200k people, where California has one for every ~718K people.

This is unfair to voters in larger states (usually thought of as "Blue") but it seen as necessary to protect the interests of smaller states (usually seen as "Red").


But all of this is wrong when it comes to the presidential election


When you add up all the population and EC for red and blue states, the "electoral power" of the red and blue states are as follows

Current system

                 Dem                 Rep                   Total
Population  170,117,705 	 158,182,839 	 328,300,544 
EC             279                   259                   538 
Pop/EC      609,741             610,745             610,224

Notice that the Blue states actually have more electoral power (lower Pop/EC) when it comes to voting in a President than the red states. This is because there are several small Blue states and several large Red states which more than balances out the small state effect.

Lets imagine a more fair system where each state would have the same electoral power. The average electoral power is 511,407 (population/EC). If each state had exactly the same electoral power (one electoral college vote per 511,407 people) then the "electoral power" of the red and blue states are as follows


Equal System

                 Dem	         Rep	                 Total
Population	 170,117,705 	 158,182,839 	 328,300,544 
EC	         316 	         322 	         637 
Pop/EC       538,741            491,781             515,044

Notice that the power of the Blue states is now actually lower (higher pop/EC) than the Red states.

What this means is that changing the Electoral college to make it equal by population (rather than eliminating it) wouldn't make it better match popular vote which favors Democrats.

Here is an excel spreadsheet with my data: http://s000.tinyupload.com/?file_id=07038117244682710962

The solution I've heard most would entail equalizing the pop/EC, plus having each state allot it's EC votes proportional to their share of the popular votes. Thus, the EC vote is simply redundant with the popular vote.

 

[TomC]

What this means is that changing the Electoral college to make it equal by population (rather than eliminating it) wouldn't make it better match popular vote which favors Democrats.

You seem to think that keeping the current system, where EC votes are determined by the partisans running individual states, is better than having a popular vote. An election system that doesn't favor anybody based on their state of residence.

How about the American people elect the president? Hold an election, and whoever gets the most votes for President wins. How about that? It's called "democracy", and the American people are generally very much in favor of democracy.

https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

No need for a Constitutional amendment. No need for anything but the American people to demand a free and fair vote for the White House.
Tom

 

[AdamWho]

The solution I've heard most would entail equalizing the pop/EC, plus having each state allot it's EC votes proportional to their share of the popular votes. Thus, the EC vote is simply redundant with the popular vote.

That was literally the whole point of the analysis.... and why that particular belief is wrong.

 

[AdamWho]

What this means is that changing the Electoral college to make it equal by population (rather than eliminating it) wouldn't make it better match popular vote which favors Democrats.

You seem to think that keeping the current system, where EC votes are determined by the partisans running individual states, is better than having a popular vote. An election system that doesn't favor anybody based on their state of residence.

How about the American people elect the president? Hold an election, and whoever gets the most votes for President wins. How about that? It's called "democracy", and the American people are generally very much in favor of democracy.

https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

No need for a Constitutional amendment. No need for anything but the American people to demand a free and fair vote for the White House.
Tom

I didn't make any comment about my preferences in keeping or changing the electoral college. My post is about "Our understanding of the power of the electoral college in presidential elections is wrong."

There are two choices in making voting more proportional to the popular vote:

1. Eliminating the Electoral College: This is a non-starter because it requires a constitutional amendment, which will not happen (but should)

2. Creating an Interstate Compact which would make electoral college votes proportional to popular vote. Such a compact would only go into effect once a sufficient number of states signed on to it.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

The solution I've heard most would entail equalizing the pop/EC, plus having each state allot it's EC votes proportional to their share of the popular votes. Thus, the EC vote is simply redundant with the popular vote.

That was literally the whole point of the analysis.... and why that particular belief is wrong.

It doesn't appear that way given what you wrote. You talked about distributing electoral college votes evenly based on equal population per vote, but it still reads as winner-take-all per state.

I think ron's statement would distribute the number of electoral votes within a state by popular vote. So with California's current 55* electoral college votes and popular vote at roughly 64% for Biden, 34% for Trump, that would generate 35 Biden votes and 19 Trump votes instead of a block of 55 for Biden (I don't know where the last vote would go).

*might not be 55 with more equitable distribution of ECV/population.

Seems like it would be a difficult system to implement as every state would have to agree to this sort of distribution and stricter faithless elector measures were enacted in every state. I don't know if it is possible to mandate such requirements federally, or alternatively if all of the states would agree to it. I don't see why traditionally red states would given Democrats have won the popular vote in seven out of the last eight elections.

 

[Worldtraveller]

The parts in the Code blocks aren't working for me (Chrome), so I can't see if there are more lines.

For a more meaningful/accurate analysis, I think you'd have to split the states in red/blue (already something of a false dichotomy, based on which election?) and swing states that aren't reliably one of the other. Without being able to see how you classify individual states, I can't judge the accuracy of your numbers, but it seems inaccurate based on similar analyses from all over the webs.

 

[TomC]

There are two choices in making voting more proportional to the popular vote:

1. Eliminating the Electoral College: This is a non-starter because it requires a constitutional amendment, which will not happen (but should)

2. Creating an Interstate Compact which would make electoral college votes proportional to popular vote. Such a compact would only go into effect once a sufficient number of states signed on to it.

Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding what you mean by 2.

But what you posted doesn't sound like all the options. What nationalpopularvote.com is advocating is individual states, whose total EC delegates equal 270 or more, agreeing to send delegates to vote for whoever wins the popular vote. Nothing about proportions, straight out "Whoever gets the most votes among the presidential candidates".

Perhaps I misunderstood you. I did post a link to what I'm talking about.
Tom

 

[Gun Nut]

Where the Electoral College fails in modern times is in spirit of its intent. The invention of the printing press made it obsolete, as the population gained access to information. The invention of the telegraph made it more obsolete. The invention of radio... tv.. internet made it completely useless, redundant, and now serves the OPPOSITE of its original intent.
Furthermore, the entirely suspect, and now completely ancient and outdated notion that a farmer in Alabama has radically different but somehow in need of more representation than other political interests than a shop owner in New York City is ludicrous. The city dwellers rely on the farmers for food, for fucks sake! The farmers rely on the city dwellers to buy their food - what the fuck would they do if their only customer was bobby next door? Their customer's interests are their interests too.
Every American is tied in some way to every other American... and all of our interests serve one another. and despite unleashed freedom to spread lies under cover of the first amendment, we all mostly share exactly the same access to exactly the same information.
So, the electoral college serve no purpose other than to dilute the power of the people's votes by giving the government the easiest out possible - people's votes are a soft suggestion for which no accountability exists. It would be perfectly legal for Kayne West to be elected President of the United States. Nothing in law prevents this. The election is over, Biden was chosen by the people no matter how you slice it up, but almost ANYONE AT ALL can be actually installed into the Presidency by government workers. That must end. The arguments against a national popular vote simply no longer exist at all.