Abolishing the Electoral College

Earlier this evening I gave a talk calling for the abolition of the Electoral College at the Culture Project, a remarkable series of plays hosted by the Naked Angels Theater Project at 45 Bleeker Street.

Some not so "fun facts" I shared earlier tonight:

--The 10 smallest states in America, by population, control 32 electoral votes. That's 6% of the votes in the Electoral College, yet their population is 7.6 million, or 2% of the national total. Thus 2% of the population controls 6% of the votes for the presidency.

--Those 10 smallest states have less people living there than there are people living in New York City (8 million).

--The state with the most electoral leverage, meaning the smallest number of elligible voters per elector, is Wyoming: A "red state" in 2000, and the home of our Vice President. In Wyoming, there are 120,000 eligible voters per electoral voter. That makes it #1.

--The state with the highest ratio of elligible voters to electors is Pennsylvania. In PA, there are 436,000 eligible voters per electoral voter. Thus a voter in Wyoming is worth 2.6 times "more" than a voter in Pennsylvania. Who said "one voter, one vote?" More like, "one voter, some kind of vote."

--The state in the middle, meaning perfectly balanced between the top 25 states in terms of influence versus the bottom 25 is Oregon, a "blue state" in 2000. In Oregon, there are 345,000 eligible voters per elector.

--Of the top 25 states, 16 were "red states" in 2000, giving the GOP 67% of the high-leverage electoral votes.

--Those states have 48.5 million residents, or 17% of the national population. 17% of the population controls 24% of the Electoral College. "One voter, one vote?" Not exactly.

--And finally, my home state of New York. We're #47 on the list, close to the bottom. In New York, there are 402,000 eligible voters per elector. Look at it this way: a voter in Wyoming is worth 2.3 times more than a voter in New York.

Many of you in the audience asked me to make available the statistics I shared on how unfair the Electoral College is. I am appending them to this message. Now many of you also asked, "What can we do about this?" Well, part of the answer lies in our figuring this out together. Those of you want to email me can do so at davidsol@panix.com; you can also post messages in response to this, and possibly, if enough people respond, get a discussion going here on next steps.

Herre's what you can download from here:

1. 3 Charts showing the rank of states, in terms of how much influence a voter has by state. Download in Adobe Acrobat PDF format. Download electoralslides.pdf

2. An outline of my talk, also in PDF format: Download onevoteronevotetalk.pdf

3. The numbers...a single page spreadsheet, in PDF format, that shows my calculations; those of you who want the original Excel version can email me and I'll send it to you. Download thenumbers.pdf

I chose putting these files in Adobe Acrobat PDF format, because this format is easy to read across different kinds of computers and operating systems. Odds are you have Adobe on your computer already and the files will open. If you dont, you can get the Adobe Acrobat Reader for free at http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html

And finally, I decided to push the technological enveloppe and make available the video of my talk. It's a big file-- 11.3 megabytes-- but it should "stream" in MPEG-4 format; if you have QuickTime it will play in your browser. it might also play in Windows Media Player, but I am not sure if they support this format. And at some point I may have to take the movie down, if it turns out that it takes away from the rest of my download allocation on this server. Meanwhile, here's the video clip: Download talkvid.mp4

Thanks!

Comments

[Chewbacca is SAfrica]

Jees...
Sounds like they got all of u back home brain washed pretty well...

[annonymous]

you don't even know what your talking about. be quiet

[sam]

Its got to go. No FAIR TO THE PEOPLE!!! We have to get together and abolish it SOON!

[Kevin]

This strikes me as very interesting. It sounds to me like who ever is griping about the current system could either be Kerry or that constant cry baby Gore. The Democrat candidate lost out in one election and they bitch and moan about it for 4 years. Lets remember that if Perot didn't run against the Teflon Prez Clinton, taking away from the Republicans, Gore would never had been a household name (he is now because of the aforementioned cry-baby thing). Our forefather’s put the system into place back in the very 1st elections. It worked then and it works now. I am pretty sure it will continue to work into the future. It balances out the ballot stuffers and the people who are registered, but dead for some time.

Thanks for letting me vent.

Please vote for your kids future safety.

[T]

I liked the first comment. Very leftist. I can almost guarantee the author wouldn't have posted this if the last election had ended differently. Check out the book "Stealing Elections." How many democrats from New York ALSO registered to vote (and voted) in Florida in 2000? Post the correct answer and then we'll talk. Let's fix the problems we have with implementing our founding fathers' vision before we start deciding we're smart enough to change the vision.

[pete]

If you look at history, the only times (2 or 3 occurances) the winner of the presidential election lost the popular vote are when the loosing candidate got disapropriatly large numbers of votes in certain parts of the country. So in practice, the EC makes sure a candidate represents the entire nation, not just one populous part of it.

In other words, most of the time, abolishing the EC would make no difference. The times it does make a difference, are the times we want it to.

Remember we are not a democracy, but a Republic. Which means the goverment needs to represent everyone, not just the majority. That is why we have the EC and the Consitution. The one truely bad part of the EC, electors actually making the presidential selection, is no longer done.

If you want to talk election reform, address the real problem facing this nation: 2 similer major parties who don't really represent the will of the people and who have rigged the system to keep alternative parties from having an impact.

There are several things which can be done at the state level to help this: ballot access reform, proportional assigmnent of EC votes, implementing Aproval voting or Condorcet voting, and personally supporting third parties which actually represent you and encouraging others to do so also. Not only are those are realistically attainable goals, unlike amending the Consitution, but the 3rd parties are much more receptive to electoral reform than the big 2.

[Matt]

I don't think you can simply say "fix the electoral college" and think that the democracy fairy will wave her magic wand and all will be balanced. There are a host of contradictions and issues that prevent the sort of theoretical "fair" democracy everyone here is rallying for. Ok...so let's assume that you do fix the college, or even better, achieve the "one man, one vote" nirvana people are chanting for. Well...

You're still going to have to overhaul the primary system. But don't tell Iowa, because they like getting to decide who the candidates are going to be. And frankly, I'm comfortable putting my faith in democracy in the hands of Iowans. Better than California. Those people are nuts.

But wait, you're also going to have to overhaul campaign finance reform. One man, one vote doesn't work if you add "one corporation" to the equation. Because the ad dollars need to come from somewhere, and all you private citizens are too greedy with your bankroll, wasting it on health insurance and all. In a national campaign a candidate needs to be visible...needs to raise money...needs to trade influence for this money...so what about "one man, one c-note," would that work?

But...wait for it. Now we need to overhaul that balloting laws. Because shouldn't Nader get a crack at getting all these vew-found votes? Why should one man, one vote only apply to the two major parties? If Nader is on the Florida ballot but not on the New Hampshire ballot...well, someone's getting disenfranchised... but who? Maybe just Ralph Nader.

But, holy ballot box, Robin. Now we need to work on income distribution, right? We need to find some way to ensure that no citizen has the ability to donate more money to a candidate than another. Hmm...maybe we make it a special tax. We can call it a "pay to see more commercials on tv" tax. Essentially we take $100 out of everyone's annual income. And when election time rolls around, oh boy, we let them donate it to whatever candidate they want. Oh...but $100 in Iowa goes a lot further than $100 in L.A. What to do, what to do?

Politics is like your big, fat, drunken uncle. He's wavering around tripping on imaginary steps and everyone's afraid he's going to blow chunks all over their nice new coat. That's why we have a constitution, to provide just enough balance to Uncle Bob to make sure that he makes it to the bathroom, or that if not...that case of PBR he's letting back into the world doesn't wind up in just one person's lap.

[Charlie]

Der. Thought it'd convert to a link automatically. http://www.electoral-vote.com/info/electoral-college.html

[Charlie]

Interesting Electoral College background here: http://www.electoral-vote.com/info/electoral-college.html

[David S. Bennahum]

For those of you who are interested, I have a new entry, examining why keeping the Electoral College and abolishing the "winner take all" system would still lead to a scenario where, in 2000, Al Gore wins the popular vote yet loses in the Electoral College. He just loses by a smaller margin.

The entry is here.

[Mr. Kahn]

Look at Iraq. The Shias have been asking for one person, one vote. As the majority they will dominate the election and the nation. If Iraq uses an electoral system the nation will be more balanced and equal.

Another take on this. Look at the World Series. Who wins? The team with the most points, or the teams which wins the most games? The team with the most points is not necessarily the better the team.

And you can always move to Wyoming to have your vote count more.

[Nate]

The numbers you point out simply show that the Electoral College works the way it was designed. That design was part of the compromise between the large states and the small states during the constitutional convention.

The Electoral College was specifically designed to keep the large states from running roughshod over the small states. It was designed to ensure that presidential candidates pay attention to the needs of the less populous states. And it does exactly that.

The United States is not a democracy. It is a republic, and on purpose.

[claude senouf]

WHAT S FAIR AND WHAT S NOT ?
DEMOCRACY IS THE ULTIMATE POLITICAL SYSTEM AIMED TO AN EDUCATIONAL LEVEL OF VOTERS THAT USOFA HAS NOT REACHED YET.
BUT YOU ARE RIGHT
ELECTORAL CLLEGE IS A NONSENSE THAT SERVES SOME LOBBIES AND SPECIFIC INTERESTS DIFFERENT FROM THE NATION S ONES
guess who does it benefits now

[David S. Bennahum]

Thanks Joel for correcting my statistic where I said 17% of the population controls 50% of the Electors in the Electoral College. I have updated the post to reflect the correct amount: 17% of the population controls 24% of the Electoral College votes.

I am a bit stunned at how much attention these numbers are getting...I see they just got republished on Slashdot now.

For those of us who want to reform the Electoral College, by either abolishing it or changing it state by state to remove the "winner take all" principle, now is the time to self-organize and start a process to get others on board.

I have some thoughts on that, and would be interested to know what other people think about it.... A little later I'll post a new entry with details on what I am thinking...

Thanks to all for posting. Your comments are excellent!

David

[Randolpho]

I am very much in favor of the Electoral College, although I agree that certain tweaks are necessary, specifically the winner-take-all system that nearly all of the States have adopted.

Mr. Bennahum, you appear to be statistically oriented.... try applying those statistics to the inherit error involved in a nation-wide direct-vote Presidential election. Be sure to factor in electoral problems like the ones in New Mexico and Florida in the 2000 election.

Pretty high, isn't it? That's right it is.

Not only does the Electoral College ensure that a Presidential Candidate be palatable to most of the States in the country (as Luke White mentioned), it also ensures a final vote that has zero statistic error. Although whether or not a particular vote should have been one way or the other could come in to question, the vote itself, once cast, is solid and undeniable. There is zero doubt about the legitimacy of the Presidency in such as system.

Invariably, whenever there is a close race, somebody calls for the abolishment of the Electoral College. The thing is... close races are when the Electoral College goes to *work*, not when it gets in the way.

Fix the Electoral College, don't remove it.

[Joel]

Those 26 small states with 17% (48.4 mill)of the population, control 127 of the 538 electors (24%)

not %50, as you stated here

--Those states have 48.5 million residents, or 17% of the national population. 17% of the population controls 50% of the Electoral College. "One voter, one vote?" Not exactly.

[Jane Howard Hammerstein]

Forgive the "T" typo in my previous screed.

[Jane Howard Hammerstein]

I am neither Democrat nor Republican, but have long furrowed a brow as to the "one man, one vote" distruth. T..." Imagine if New York City alone had had 32 electoral votes in the 2000 election. Things would have turned out differently". ... essential to my way of thinking, should be the sort of conclusion left out when you send this [sequentially] as a Letter to the Editor of various newpapers. I think you don't want anything in this sensible necessary approach to a job long-needed-to-be-done to be immediately read as partisan. You deeply do want others, those who aren't yet Members of Either Choir, to sing. Huzzah to you; upward, outward and onward.

[Joe Grossberg]

Well, yeah, and at the U.N. the 1 billion plus people of India have no more representation than the 20,000 citizens of Palau.

No system is going to be fair by everyone's definition. Get over it.

[Luke White]

If a vote in Wyoming is worth 2.6 times what it is in Pennsylvania, there's a simple solution for those who feel disenfranchised: move to Wyoming.

The Electoral College isn't just a byzantine way to elect a President--it's a means of providing geographic equity. A bicoastal democracy without a provision like this would pretty soon end up as three nations. Giving underpopulated areas disproportionate power has been an excellent way of assuring that flyover land is part of the nation rather than just neglected territory.

[daser]

Cheesedawg,

The 50 separate state-wide elections which you refer to are not the end of the process (if they were we would have different presidents for different states). They are set up to be one part of a *national* election that selects one president for the entire nation. So, in order to actually choose one president for all 50 states, the electoral voters from each state cast their votes as a block in favor of the candidate that won their state-wide election. I just happen to think that they should cast these votes proportionally to represent the results of their state-wide election instead. That way, a vote for the losing candidate in a state-wide election would not be completely pointless and your vote would actually get transferred to the final election process. Once the vote is over with, of course only one candidate wins. However, the issue is what happens up until that point. I don't like the way my vote gets changed along the way by the winner-take-all system.

This change might improve the system to better reflect the will of the people while still giving some balance to the more rural states (they would still have a higher proportion of votes to cast).

[Michelle]

"I only wonder how many of you would be bleating this same stuff if Bush had lost in 2000."

I've been bleating this same stuff for years, before Bush "won" and people like you discovered the "sore loser" ad hominem as the easy alternative to changing a broken system.

I remember saying to my friends, early on Election Night 2000 as we sat and watched election coverage in a living room in Jacksonville, Florida, "I almost hope we do end up with an electoral deadlock. Maybe then they'll change the system and just give everybody one vote." If the chaos that erupted later that night wasn't enough to get the system changed, I don't know if anything will ever do the trick. I wish I were more optimistic about it.

[Matt]

I hate to be a snob about all this, but let's face facts -- the majority of voters ARE ignorant slobs. I don't want presidential elections decided by heavy-browed mouth-breathing cave dwellers whose main source of candidate information is the "ROCK TEH VOTE!!1" break on MTV while they pause between Good Charlotte videos.

The whole idea behind our system of government is that we are a union of states that agree (for the most part) that will be answerable in part to a larger federal government. Each state has its own interests, and the executives and legislatures of the state work together to get those interests taken care of. The STATE must be considered a percentage of the vote, not Albany here, NYC here, Louisville over there, 17th&New York there.

Weighing the collective interests of the state versus the collective interests of city dwellers versus farmers versus students vs lesbian midget vietnam veteran amputees, I'd much rather see the state win out.

Keep the electoral college.

I only wonder how many of you would be bleating this same stuff if Bush had lost in 2000. I'm willing to bet none. Sounds like a good, solid case of soreloseritis.

[cheezedawg]

Hey Daser, by your logic, if you vote for a losing candidate in _any_ election, your vote is thrown out.

The fact is, we do not have a national election for the President- we have 50 statewide elections.

[John]

Democracy is 3 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. It is not a value in and of itself. What matters is what's good for the country. And having a direct popular election for president, where the concentrated interests of city-dwellers outweigh the disperesed interests of the rest of the country, would not be.