The Electoral College: Examining the Small State Advantage

The Electoral College, a cornerstone of the American presidential election system, has been the subject of intense debate since its inception. While proponents argue that it protects the interests of smaller states and preserves the principles of federalism, critics contend that it distorts the popular vote, disenfranchises voters, and grants disproportionate power to certain states. This article delves into the complexities of the Electoral College, examining the claim that it provides an advantage to small states and exploring the broader implications of this system for American democracy.

The Apportionment of Electoral Votes

The Electoral College consists of 538 electors, with each state receiving a number of electors equal to its total number of senators (always two) and representatives in Congress (based on population). This allocation formula inherently favors smaller states, as every state is guaranteed at least three electoral votes regardless of its population size.

For instance, Wyoming, with a population of approximately 532,668 citizens, has three electoral votes, while Texas, with a population of almost 25 million, has thirty-two electoral votes. This means that each individual vote in Wyoming counts nearly four times as much in the Electoral College as each individual vote in Texas. By dividing the population by electoral votes, we can see that Wyoming has one "elector" for every 177,556 people and Texas has one "elector" for about every 715,499.

This disparity has led many observers to believe that the Electoral College introduces complications and potential problems into our political system. The small states were given additional power to prevent politicians from only focusing on issues which affect the larger states.

Winner-Take-All System and Campaign Strategies

Adding another layer of complexity is the winner-take-all method used by almost all states in allocating their electoral votes. Under this system, the candidate who wins the most votes in a state receives all of that state's electoral votes. This creates a situation where candidates focus their campaign efforts on a limited number of swing states, neglecting states that are considered safely Republican or Democratic.

Read also: UCF Application Strategies

For example, Democratic candidates have little incentive to spend time in solidly Republican states, like Texas, even if many Democrats live there. Similarly, Republican candidates may not prioritize campaigning in reliably Democratic states. This can lead to voter disenfranchisement and a sense that some states are more important than others in the presidential election.

Ironically, there is a study that concludes that larger states are actually at an advantage in the Electoral College. Because almost all states give all of its electors to whichever candidate wins the most votes within that state, candidates must win whole states in order to win the presidency.

Faithless Electors and the Potential for Discrepancies

While most electors are expected to vote for the candidate who won the popular vote in their state, there is no federal law that requires them to do so. Although 29 states and the District of Columbia have laws in place to control how their electors vote, 21 states have no such requirements. In these states, electors are free to vote in whatever manner they please, including abstaining from voting altogether.

Even in states that do have control over their electors, the punishment for violating their pledge is often minimal, such as a small fine. This inconsistency allows for discrepancies in our electoral system, where electors can potentially disregard the will of the voters and cast their vote for an alternative candidate.

Over the years, however, despite legal oversight, a number of electors have violated their state's law binding them to their pledged vote. However, these violators often only face being charged with a misdemeanor or a small fine, usually $1,000. Many constitutional scholars agree that electors remain free agents despite state laws and that, if challenged, such laws would be ruled unconstitutional. Therefore, electors can decline to cast their vote for a specific candidate (the one that wins the popular vote of their state), either voting for an alternative candidate, or abstaining completely. This inconsistency allows for discrepancies in our electoral system.

Historical Context and Concerns About "Uneducated" Decisions

In the founding of our nation, the Electoral College was established to prevent the people from making "uneducated" decisions. Some argue that in the modern day, there is no reason to assign this responsibility to a set of individual electors.

If no candidate receives a majority of the electoral votes, the presidential vote is deferred to the House of Representatives and the vice presidential vote is deferred to the Senate. If the Senate and the House of Representatives reflect different majorities, meaning that they select members of opposing parties, the offices of president and vice president could be greatly damaged.

Because of our two-party system, voters often find themselves voting for the "lesser of two evils," rather than a candidate they really feel would do the best job. Since most states distribute their electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis, the smaller party has no chance to gain support without seeming to take this support from one of the major parties.

The Possibility of Winning the Presidency Without Winning the Popular Vote

As the 2000 election demonstrated, it is possible for a president to be elected without winning the popular vote. Nor was the Bush/Gore election the first time a presidential candidate has won the presidency while someone else claimed a plurality of the votes cast. As an even more common occurrence is for a presidential candidate to win both the presidency and the popular vote without actually winning a majority of all ballots cast. This has happened 16 times since the founding of the Electoral College, most recently in 2000.

Debunking Myths About the Electoral College

Several myths surround the Electoral College, often perpetuating misconceptions about its purpose and impact. One common myth is that big cities, such as Los Angeles, would control a nationwide popular vote for President. However, Los Angeles does not control the outcome of statewide elections in California; so it’s hardly in a position to dominate a nationwide election. The fact that LA does not control the outcome of statewide elections in its own state is evidenced by the fact that Republicans such as Ronald Reagan, George Deukmejian, Pete Wilson, and Arnold Schwarzenegger were elected in recent years without winning Los Angeles.

Another myth is that the framers created the Electoral College to protect the small states. The framers created the Senate to ensure equal representation for each state, regardless of population. Thus, Delaware and California both have 2 senators. The number of House seats is dependent upon the state’s population. “A direct election for president did not sit well with most delegates from the slave states, which had large populations but far fewer eligible voters. They gravitated toward the electoral college as a compromise because it was based on population. The convention had agreed to count each slave as three-fifths of a person for the purpose of calculating each state’s allotment of seats in Congress. For Virginia, which had the largest population among the original 13 states, that meant more clout in choosing the president.” (George C.

The Impact on Voter Turnout and Political Engagement

The Electoral College can also depress voter participation in much of the nation. Overall, the percentage of voters who participated in last fall’s election was almost 5 percent higher than the turnout in 2000. Yet, most of the increase was limited to the battleground states. A 2005 Brookings Institution report entitled Thinking About Political Polarization pointed out: “The electoral college can depress voter participation in much of the nation. In 2012, USA Today reported the following about that year’s election: “Swing-state voters are a bit more enthusiastic about voting this year than those living elsewhere, perhaps reflecting the attention they’re given in TV ads and candidate visits. There is nothing new about the fact that voter turnout is higher in closely divided battleground states.

“The overall level of turnout in the election was low. … "Only half a dozen states experienced a real popular contest: in the Old Northwest (Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois), in New Jersey and Maryland, and in North Carolina. In America Goes to the Polls: A Report on Voter Turnout in the 2008 Election, the Nonprofit Voter Engagement Network found that in 2008: “Voter turnout in the 15 battleground states averaged seven points higher than in the 35 non-battleground states.” Concerning the 2004 election, Daniel E.

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

The National Popular Vote bill is concerned with the relative political importance of popular votes cast in different states for presidential electors. The currently prevailing winner-take-all method (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a state) makes votes unequal from state to state. With the National Popular Vote, all votes will be counted in a national tally to determine the winner. The National Popular Vote bill is state legislation-not a federal constitutional amendment. The National Popular Vote compact would not abolish the Electoral College. Constitution.

The National Popular Vote makes every vote cast for each candidate equal, reflecting each candidate’s true percentage of cast votes against.

The Electoral College and the Preservation of Federalism

The Electoral College preserves the principles of federalism that are essential to our constitutional republic. The U.S. is a large country made up of people from very different regions and cultures, and federalism is an important way of preserving the differences that make us unique while uniting us behind one common federal government.

The Electoral College prevents presidential candidates from winning an election by focusing solely on high-population urban centers and dense media markets, forcing them to seek the support of a larger cross-section of the American electorate. Large cities like New York City and Los Angeles should not get to unilaterally dictate policies that affect more rural states, like North Dakota and Indiana, which have very different needs. These states may be smaller, but their values still matter-they should have a say in who becomes President.

The Electoral College and Election Legitimacy

The Electoral College increases the legitimacy and certainty of elections by magnifying the margin of victory, thereby diminishing the value of contentious recounts and providing a demonstrable election outcome and a mandate to govern. In contrast, a popular vote system with just a plurality requirement could lead to the election of presidential candidates by unprecedented, small margins. These smaller victory margins, combined with the overall decrease in popular support for a single candidate, could trigger chaotic and contested elections. The Electoral College makes elections more stable, and less likely to trigger contentious recounts. Every state has different procedural rules for the administration of elections, including how recounts are triggered and conducted and how provisional ballots are counted. The 2000 presidential election saw an unprecedented vote recount in Florida that was a belabored, emotional, and costly process, even though it was limited to only one state. With a national popular vote, every additional vote a presidential candidate could obtain anywhere in the country could make the difference between winning or losing a national election.

While no system can completely eliminate the risk of individuals trying to cheat the system, the Electoral College minimizes the incentives for voter fraud because the system isolates the impact of stolen votes. Under the current system, stolen votes only affect the outcome of one state rather than the national outcome.

Small States as Spectator States

The small states (the 13 states with only three or four electoral votes) are the most disadtagedvan and ignored group of states under the current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes; NOT because of their low population, but because they are not closely divided battleground states. Maine has never been a battleground state! In 2016, 2/3rds of the campaign events were in just 6 states; 94% were in just 12 swing states. Under the current state-by-state winner-take-all system, a vote for President in Wyoming is equal to a vote in California. Both are politically irrelevant because California is reliably Democratic and Wyoming is reliably Republican.

Maine has state-wide winner-take-all for 2 of its 4 Electoral College votes; and each of the two congressional districts has its own winner-takes-all system for 1 of the remaining 2 votes. This makes irrelevant the votes of those who didn’t vote for the state or district winner.

Even though they have more Electoral Votes than they would based on population, these 10 states still only boast 32 Electoral Votes between them, which is only three more than the state of Florida. The presidential race is fought and won, not across the country as a whole, and not in small states, but in battleground states. These are the handful of states where the margin between the two major parties is thin, and so all their Electoral College votes are up for grabs under the state-winner-take-all system. This is where candidates campaign, campaigns spend money, and presidents spend more federal funds once in office to boost their chances of reelection. Battleground states are the ones that matter.

All the gray states in the map above are “safe” for one party, which makes them mere spectators to the presidential race that plays out in battleground states. Because all of their Electoral Votes are locked up from the outset, candidates don’t bother campaigning in those states. They don’t bother trying to win over voters in those states because winning extra votes there won’t help them win any more Electoral Votes. Despite more Electoral Votes relative to their populations, small states are still spectator states in the state-winner-take-all system. In practice, a voter in Wyoming counts for just as much as a voter in California. Because almost all states currently give all their Electoral Votes to a single candidate, even if many voters within the state voted for someone else, a voter in little, safe Wyoming or Vermont matters much less than a voter in big, battleground Florida or Pennsylvania. But if every vote counted equally, if the candidates were seeking to earn the most votes across the country, then every voter would hold more power and get more attention from candidates and campaigns.

The Small State Bias in the Senate

The small state bias in the Senate carries over to the Electoral College since each state gets an Electoral College vote for each of its senators. So small states get proportionately more electors. That reality has never been more evident than in recent presidential elections. In the 25 presidential elections in the 20th century, not once did the candidate who lost the popular vote win the presidency in the Electoral College.

The Original Intent of the Electoral College

Nothing about our current electoral system is like what the Founders envisioned. But by 1836, all the states were using a statewide“winner take all” system to choose their electors, a system never advocated or envisioned by the founders. Instead of being a deliberative body, the Electoral College in practice was (and is) composed of presidential electors who voted in lockstep to rubber stamp the choices that were made by the nominating caucuses of the political parties. In the debates of the Constitutional Convention and in the Federalist Papers, there is no mention of the winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes. When the Founding Fathers went back to their states in 1789 to organize the nation’s first presidential election, only three state legislatures chose to employ the winner-take-all method. As John Jay (the presumed author of Federalist No. As Alexander Hamilton (the presumed author of Federalist No. “[T]he immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. In this regard, the Electoral College was patterned after ecclesiastical and royal elections. For example, the College of Cardinals in the Roman Catholic Church constitutes the world’s oldest and longest-running electoral college. Cardinals (with lifetime appointments) deliberate to choose the Pope. If Americans want to select a president the way the Founders envisioned, we’d need to give up the statewide popular vote, and return to the days when the legislature selected the Electors without input from the people. Winner-take-all statutes enable a mere plurality of voters in each state to control 100% of a state’s electoral vote, thereby extinguishing the voice of the remainder of the state’s voters. The state-by-state winner-take-all rule does not prevent a “tyranny of the majority” but instead is an example of it. It is impossible to discern any specific threat of “tyranny of the majority” that was posed by the first-place candidates in the 5 elections in which the Electoral College elected the second-place candidate to the Presidency (1824, 1876, 1888, 2000 and 2016).

tags: #electoral #college #small #states #advantage