The
Representative Electoral College
-
a proportional take on the electoral college -
Garrett
Garceau
Editors/Contributors
Kasondra Karr
Darren Karr
With
political dichotomy at an all-time high in our nation, more discussion should
be made as to both why our political systems are in place, and whether or not
adjustments should occur. One of the
most recent subjects of debate being the 2016 presidential election, in which Donald Trump won
the electoral college votes, yet lost the popular vote to Hillary Clinton. Almost instantly, outcries ensued regarding
why the electoral college exists at all, and why the popular vote is not used
instead; however, there was very little discussion regarding why our electoral
college acts the way it is. This outcry of dissatisfaction regarding political outcomes is nothing new, but not much has changed in the electoral college or presidential elections in a long time. It is my purpose in this article to stimulate thought
and encourage discussion about the electoral college.
The
electoral college method that the United States of America currently uses for
presidential elections is best known as the 12th Amendment, and has been in use
since 1804. Its original purpose and
hopes were to give each state a voice without primarily focusing on more
populated states. This way, candidates would have to spend more time considering
the needs of multiple states instead of focusing on states with the largest
populations. Also, since larger
cities/urban areas have a trend of being more democratic or liberal than rural
areas, the electoral college helps balance out the nation as a whole. Prior to
the 12th Amendment, state legislators voted instead of the people.
Today,
the electoral college does not allow the true voice of the people to be heard.
With the "Winner Take All" approach to the electoral college, voters who
did not vote for the winning candidate are not represented and the state as a
whole is misrepresented as being a "red" or "blue" state. Just one example is Florida during the 2016
election: Trump received 49% of the votes, whereas Clinton received 48%. With a 1% difference in the popular, and neither candidate getting more than 50%, Florida is considered a "red" state and 48% of the voters are instantly disregarded. This system in place is one main reason that Florida was such a controversy during the 2000 election.
In states that traditionally vote for the same party year after year, the votes of the opposing parties are never fully taken into consideration, and "third-party" candidates are rarely shown to have any impact in the voting system (the last time a 3rd party candidate received an official electoral vote was 1976). Even though the popular vote is reported, the popular vote for the entire US has no say in which candidate is elected. This "Winner Take All" approach may also be contributing to our nation's political dichotomy and the feeling of political "winners" and "losers" instead of accurately representing the political atmosphere that exists.
In states that traditionally vote for the same party year after year, the votes of the opposing parties are never fully taken into consideration, and "third-party" candidates are rarely shown to have any impact in the voting system (the last time a 3rd party candidate received an official electoral vote was 1976). Even though the popular vote is reported, the popular vote for the entire US has no say in which candidate is elected. This "Winner Take All" approach may also be contributing to our nation's political dichotomy and the feeling of political "winners" and "losers" instead of accurately representing the political atmosphere that exists.
Even
though over 100 million people vote on election day, under our current election
process the president is chosen Dec. 18 by 538 individuals known as the
Electoral Voters (the amount of electoral voters is equal to the numbers of
senators and representatives per each state). While these individuals may
technically vote for whomever they deem most fit for president, each state's
electoral voters traditionally vote for the state's popular vote winner, which
leads to our "Winner Take All" system. Some Electoral Voters may vote
for another candidate other than the state's popular vote winner - these are
known as "Faithless Electors"; Howerever, there are a few states that have restrictions, fines, penalties, and
even removal for these Faithless Electors2. These fines and penalties may be in place to
ensure they perform as instructed, but it seems to silence the free speech that
these Electors should have. It can be
argued that the reason we have Electoral Voters, instead of using an automated
electoral vote system or the popular vote system, is to allow for these
Electoral Voters to prevent candidates from obtaining the presidency if they
deem them not fit. Whatever the reason
for these Electoral Voters, with voting restrictions in place they become a
tool of the government instead of a representative of the people.
Two
states have made steps towards splitting up their electoral votes in the
Presidential Primaries: Maine (since 1972) and Nebraska (since 1996)1.
This method, known as Congressional District - Popular allocates two
electoral votes to the winner of the state's popular vote, with an additional
one electoral vote to the popular vote of each individual Congressional
District. Under this model in the 2016 election, Maine gave 3 electoral votes to Clinton and 1 electoral vote to Trump. While not adopted by any states, another variation of the electoral college,
Proportional Popular - Popular, awards two electoral votes to the winner
of the state's popular vote, and additional votes allocated to candidates
according to the percentage of popular vote, allowing for "third-party" candidates to be acknowledged in
the primary races.
But
what if states awarded electoral votes to candidates based solely on the
popular vote? Using the proposed Representative
Electoral College (REC) method essentially eliminates electoral voters, leaving
an automated system to proportionally divide electoral votes to candidates
based on each state's popular vote (i.e., electoral votes would be automatically cast without the need for "Electoral Voters" or other government middle-men). One example would be from Arizona during
the 2012 election: Obama received 45% of the votes versus Romney obtaining 54%;
since Arizona had 11 electoral votes, Obama would have received five votes, and
Romney six (see the Data Collection Methods for more information on how data
was collected and divided). Graphs can be found below displaying this REC model compared to the actual results of presidential elections since 1944.
The
REC method does parallel the popular vote in terms of winning/losing the
presidency, but it shows historically how some elections could have no
candidate reaching 51% of the electoral votes. While this has happened only
once under the current electoral college (1824, Jackson vs. Adams) resulting in
the House of Representatives choosing the presidency, under the REC model this
would have occurred five times in the last 70 years (1948, 1968, 1992, 2000,
and 2016). Each of these elections were
either very close in the popular vote (especially the 2016 and 2000 elections),
or could have been heavily altered with the presence of "third-party"
candidates receiving their rightly-earned votes (1948, 1968, 1992).
While
none of the alternate election processes above may be the best for our nation, there
needs to be more discussion on how to more accurately represent the voice of
the people. Whether minor fixes or a
complete overhaul is needed, using an election system over 200 years old may
not be the best system for the country today.
Below
are charts showing the differences between the actual electoral votes, and the
REC model for primary elections since 1944. While not all of the election results are altered due to dividing
the electoral votes equally, many of the REC charts show prominent support of
"third parties", a closing gap between candidates, and a more
accurate representation of the voting that occurs in our nation.
REC
Election Charts
All charts were created on Excel 2007, and all data
were compiled using Google Sheets
The horizontal dashed line represents the minimum
electoral college votes required to guarantee presidency (270 votes since 1964).
 |
2016
- With no candidate securing 270 votes, The House of Representatives would have
to vote for Trump, Clinton, or Johnson.
|
 |
2012
- Obama secures just enough votes to gain the presidency. Johnson secures one electoral vote from
California
|
 |
2008
- Obama secures more than enough electoral votes to achieve the presidency
|
 |
| 2004 - Bush has no issues this election in securing over 270 electoral votes |
 |
| 2000 - With one of the closest and possibly most controversial elections in US history, the actual results of the election show Bush winning the presidency after a recount in Florida. Under our REC model Nader receives 6 electoral votes from multiple states, but ultimately the presidency would have been voted by The House of Representatives. |
 |
| 1996 - Clinton barely secures 270 votes, and two "third party" candidates are found to secure electoral votes. |
 |
| 1992 - This election year shows a great example of how a "third party" candidate was heavily voted for. Under the REC model The House of Representatives would have to vote for the president and USA would know how much impact a third-party candidate had. |
 |
1988 - No change in election results, but the
gap has closed
|
 | |||||
| 1984 - With a second landslide victory by Reagan, the REC model shows a closed gap and no change in the results. |
 |
1980 - Reagan's first landslide victory in
the actual results. The REC model shows no change in election results, and
Anderson gaining 29 electoral votes.
|
 | |
| 1976 - No change in the election results, but a closed gap. |
 |
1972 - No change in the election, but a
closed gap and one electoral vote gained by Scmitz.
|
 |
| 1968 - While Nixon wins the actual election, the REC model shows the presidency being decided by The House of Representatives, and a closed gap for all three candidates. |
 |
| 1964 - The first year Washington DC is allowed to vote, and an increase to 270 minimum electoral votes required to secure the presidency. This is also the final year that unpledged voters were allowed. No change in the election results. |
 |
| 1960 - Alaska and Hawaii vote for the first time. REC model shows Kennedy securing the candidacy at exactly the minimum votes (269, an increase from 266 votes in 1956), a decrease in votes to Byrd (one of the very few times this happens with the REC model) and two votes for unpledged candidates. |
 |
1956 - No change in the election results, but
one vote is given to Jones, and four to Unpledged Candidates.
|
 |
| 1952 - No change in election results |
 |
1948 - The House of Representatives are to
vote on the presidency. Wallace receives six votes from various states.
|
 |
| 1944 - No change in election results; however, four votes for "no candidate" are received from Texas and South Carolina. |
Data
Collection Methods
Data were collected from three sites listed in the
Data Collection Sources section below. Each
candidate's percentage of popular vote was taken from the electoral vote of
each state (e.g., Example A). Due to
votes having to be integers (i.e., whole numbers), sometimes electoral votes
would come out as either below or above the allotted votes. In the case of
votes coming out short (always by one vote), the candidate with the popular
vote received the extra vote to bring total votes up to the state's allotted
amount (e.g., Example B). In the case of votes computing to more than the
allocated amount (often due to a percentage of between 1.0 and 0.5 being
rounded up) the candidate with the lowest popular vote for that state would
lose their vote (e.g., Example C).
In some cases, an Electoral Voter did not cast a vote for the candidate that received the state's popular vote. For the calculations, these votes were kept and any adjustments were taken from the candidate with the lowest popular vote to best preserve the wishes of historical voters.
After the adjustments described above (and shown as examples below), all electoral votes were accounted for. This adjustment may not be agreed upon by all, but it appears to be most fair to the state's popular vote. The full data set is able to be viewed below. Please feel free to contact me or comment for any questions, concerns, etc. that you may have.
Electoral Votes
|
Romney
|
Obama
|
|
Arizona
|
11
|
54%
|
45%
|
6
|
5
|
Example
A - 2012 Election
A
straightforward division of electoral votes
Electoral Votes
|
Romney
|
Obama
|
|
Georgia
|
16
|
53%
|
45%
|
8
|
7
|
||
( + 1 extra vote)
|
|||
After Adjustment
|
9
|
7
|
|
Example
B - 2012 Election
In
this example, an extra vote was allocated to Romney due to the state's total
votes not
being
reached, and Romney obtained the majority popular vote.
Electoral Votes
|
Bush
|
Gore
|
Nader
|
|
Ohio
|
21
|
50%
|
46%
|
3%
|
11
|
10
|
1
|
||
(-1 vote)
|
||||
After Adjustment
|
11
|
10
|
0
|
|
Example
C - 2000 Election
In
this example, a vote was removed from Nader as the state's total votes were
exceeding the allowed amount, and because Nader received the fewest votes
Data Set via Google Sheets: Full Data Sheet - Viewable only
Data Set via Google Sheets: Full Data Sheet - Viewable only
Data
Collection Sources
Election data from 2016 were collected from Google
and ap.org3
Election data from 1984 to 2012 were collected from
the Federal Election Commision4
Election data from 1944 to 1980 were collected from
David Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections5
Chart
Information
All charts were created on Excel 2007, and all data
were compiled using Google Sheets
The horizontal dashed line represents the minimum
electoral college votes required to guarantee presidency (270 votes since 1964)
References
1. http://www.270towin.com/alternative-electoral-college-allocation-methods/
2. http://www.fairvote.org/faithless_elector_state_laws
3. http://ap.org/products-services/elections/FAQs
4. http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/electionresults.shtml
5. http://uselectionatlas.org/
