How the Electoral College Sucks
October 3rd, 2008 by timbotron
[click to enlarge]
As American presidential elections are coming up, ponder this:
• A vote for president in Maine is worth more than two votes for president in California.
• A vote for president in North Dakota is worth more than three votes for president in California.
I made this lovely graphic to show the value of a presidential vote in each state, compared to California. For example, Louisiana is labeled +39%. That means voting for president in Louisiana has 39% more value than voting for president in California - five votes from Louisiana equals almost seven votes from California. I decided to use California as a basis of comparison because I live here and because we rock.
Why is this happening?
Because the Electoral College sucks.
For those of you who are new to this or who didn’t pay attention in highschool. . . the Electoral College is how we vote a president into office: you cast your vote, and whoever gets the majority of your state’s votes wins all of the state’s “Electoral Votes.” Whoever wins all of those becomes president. Usually.
Here’s the catch: Because of something known as the “Connecticut Compromise” or “Great Compromise,” the number of electoral votes each state has does not accurately reflect their population size. This was originally a way to prevent the interests of smaller states from being trampled on by bigger states.
In simple terms: Alaska (with an estimated 2007 population of 683,478) has 3 electoral votes. California (with an estimated 2007 population of 36,553,215) has 55 electoral votes.
• For every 227,826 people in Alaska, there is one electoral vote.
• For every 664,603 people in California, there is one electoral vote.
A presidential vote in Alaska has 192% more value than a vote from California.
Which sucks.
Some Highlights:
• Presidential votes in some states carry over twice the value of a vote from California: Alaska (+192% more value), Delaware (+131%), Hawaii (+107%), Maine (+102%), Montana (+108%), New Hampshire (+102%), Rhode Island (+151%), South Dakota (+150%),
• Presidential votes in some states carry over three times the value of a vote from California: North Dakota (+212% more value), Vermont (+221%), and Wyoming (+281%)
• Only two states have presidential votes of less value than California: Texas (-6% less value), Utah (-13% less value).
*Population data from U.S. Census Bureau Statistics for 2007.
October 3rd, 2008 at 7:38 pm
And there’s more . . .
The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided “battleground” states. In 2004 two-thirds of the visits and money were focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money went to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people were merely spectators to the presidential election. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule under which all of a state’s electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.
Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections.
In the past six decades, there have been six presidential elections in which a shift of a relatively small number of votes in one or two states would have elected (and, of course, in 2000, did elect) a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 21 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes — 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
October 6th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
The electoral college and a tradition of federalism is not the problem. It is the two-party dominance that stems from a conscious decision on the part of both party and state to circumvent the electoral process.
This math is meaningful ONLY because of the winner-take-all distribution, which makes it all but impossible for third party politics to gain a national foothold. Electorate distribution mirrors Congressional representation, so your logic is as much an argument against the existence of the Senate as how we elect Presidents. Instead, the energy should be directed against state legislation that distributes electoral votes in chunks.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:25 pm
The Electoral College SUCKS!…
Last night I watched CNN’s analysis of what it would take for McCain to win. They had a map of the U.S. with blue, red and beige states. The blue states are those projected to go for Obama, the red signifies states projected to vote McCain, and the be…
October 29th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Excellent graphic! Thank you for making and posting it. It illustrates the problem very nicely.