The problem with changing the Electoral College

The Electoral College has been a controversial topic over the past few years. People tend to have very strong opinions about the institution, which, in most instances, comes down to who citizens believe is advantaged or disadvantaged by it. Ideally, a good electoral system should be neutral, where no party, candidate or region is advanced at the expense of another. Yet, this is among the chief criticisms we hear about our system.

For instance, in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election I gave a presentation explaining the Electoral College on the campus of UCLA and was met with bewilderment and frustration. Many questioned why voters in Ohio should be any more important than voters in California. As a native Buckeye, I didn’t take it personally and instead explained that the audience was not alone in their frustration. After all, presidential elections are generally decided by a handful of so-called “swing states.“

This has recently led many to call for the abolition of the Electoral College in favor of a national popular vote. Yet, critics realize how resilient the institution has been, surviving nearly 800 attempts to amend or abolish it over the course of our nation’s history. Most changes that have occurred have happened at the state level.

Short of a national popular vote, some have argued for a form of proportional representation similar to what Maine and Nebraska use. It is believed that this could be a way to democratize the Electoral College and produce campaigns that are more national in scope. However, such a plan is not without its own problems.

First, it is important to recognize that the Electoral College process leads candidates to ignore a majority of states across the country. Just as in 2016, most states in 2020 were not targeted by the presidential campaigns for their votes. This includes heavily populated states such as California and New York, but also less populated states like Montana, the Dakotas and Wyoming.

During the first nine weeks of the 2020 campaign, the bulk of presidential visits occurred in just 12 states and 85% occurred in just eight states. In addition to campaign visits, about 90% of television campaign spending was done in just six states through mid-October (Pennsylvania, Florida, Wisconsin, Michigan, Arizona and North Carolina). Most states did not see a single campaign visit, nor did they see much in the way of campaign advertising. This is especially true among states that have few Electoral College votes.

Two notable exceptions are Maine and Nebraska. These are the only two states that award their electoral votes on the basis of who wins in their congressional district. If a ticket wins a plurality of the vote in a congressional district, they are awarded an electoral vote. Whichever ticket wins the popular vote across the states receives the “bonus two” electoral votes that each state receives corresponding to their representation in the United States Senate.

In 2008, Barack Obama captured an electoral vote in Nebraska’s second congressional district. In 2016, Donald Trump earned an electoral vote in Maine’s second congressional district. This year, both of these congressional districts have received attention from the presidential campaigns.

All other states use the winner-take-all method, which awards all of a state’s electoral votes to the ticket that earns a plurality of the vote in the state. This method can lead to some pretty disproportionate outcomes which most often work to amplify the difference between a candidate’s popular vote total and electoral vote total.

For instance, in 1992, Bill Clinton earned just over 43% of the popular vote but nearly 69% of the Electoral College vote. In 1980, Ronald Reagan earned 51% of the popular vote but 91% of the Electoral College vote. Some dubiously argue that this “magnification effect” provides legitimacy by amplifying a candidate’s Electoral College total — especially in close elections.

While most often this effect goes unnoticed, it can have especially significant consequences under some conditions.

The 2016 election is one of those instances. While Trump and Hillary Clinton each earned about 47% of the vote in Michigan in 2016, Trump pulled ahead by 0.2% of a point, yet he earned 100% of the state’s 16 electoral votes. Similarly, Trump bested Clinton by 0.7% of votes in Pennsylvania, but earned all 20 of the state’s electoral votes. And although Trump trailed Clinton by just 1.6% in Minnesota, he lost all 10 of the state’s electoral votes. Looking only at the final electoral result does little to reflect how close the contests were in each of these states.

Because so many states are not competitive, many voters in these states may feel like their votes are wasted. This is reflected in President Trump’s recent claim about the Electoral College system that “The Republicans have a disadvantage. They lose New York, Illinois and California before it even starts.” Democrats in many other states dominated by Republicans would likely feel disadvantaged as well.

Proponents of the district plan suggest it more accurately reflects the electorate’s wishes. It is believed that it would get rid of the idea that there are wasted votes in uncompetitive states and promote a more representative means to select the nation’s chief executive. However, a move to use district elections is not without its pitfalls — chiefly over the problem of gerrymandering.

Concerns over gerrymandering have persisted in American politics for two centuries. The term is attributed to Elbridge Gerry and it refers to the practice of drawing legislative districts to favor one political party over others.

If electoral votes across the country were tied to congressional districts, incentives to gerrymander would be extraordinary. For instance, while Obama was able to win Nebraska’s 2nd congressional district in 2008, his chances were likely diminished after the 2010 census and the subsequent redrawing of the congressional district by the Nebraska legislature for the 2012 election. Using the district selection across the country would likely create a system of gerrymandering on steroids.

A second potential problem could be found in the role of third-party spoilers. It is conceivable that third parties or independent candidates could have strong showings in a few highly conservative or liberal congressional districts and ultimately claim a few electoral votes. This could matter at the margins, denying any candidate a majority of Electoral College votes.

This was among the concerns raised after the strong showing by George Wallace in the 1968 election when the House of Representatives overwhelmingly voted to eliminate the Electoral College in favor of a popular vote a year later.

If no candidate receives a majority of the Electoral College vote, a contingent election would occur, meaning the House of Representatives would be charged with selecting the president. State power reigns supreme in a contingent election, as each state receives one vote. Thus, the 53 representatives from California would have one vote, and the one representative from Wyoming would have equal power. In fact, there are seven states that have just one representative — all which would have the same weight as the delegations from Texas, New York, Florida and Illinois. This would not seem to be a desirable outcome for those wanting a more equitable system of representation.

A third concern is that moving to a district selection process could lead to even more misfire elections –elections where the winner of the national popular vote does not win in the Electoral College.

This situation has occurred in two of the last five presidential elections (in 2000 and 2016) and each was followed with widespread criticism of the Electoral College process. Interestingly, if all states had used the district selection process in 2012, analysts have estimated that Mitt Romney would have been another misfire president — losing the popular vote by 5 million votes but capturing a majority of electoral votes because of the contours of Republican-friendly congressional districts.

Under a nationwide district selection process, both George W. Bush and Donald Trump would have still won in the Electoral College despite losing the popular vote in 2000 and 2016.

These outcomes underscore the role gerrymandering by state legislatures would have on the presidential selection process. It also suggests why Reince Priebus supported having some states adopt the district plan when he was the head of the Republican National Committee in 2013.

It is unlikely that a move to the district method throughout the states would lead to more fairly distributed nationwide campaigns, nor would they necessarily lead to more representative campaigns. Instead, we would likely see an even greater degree of politicization of the redistricting process, which would result in a system where candidates compete for a limited number of swing districts instead of swing states.

If Democrats continue to make inroads in states such as Texas and Georgia, we can expect the Republican-controlled state legislatures in those states will likely consider plans to change how they award their electoral votes from the winner-take-all system to the district system. Regardless of what unfolds in the 2020 election, the Electoral College will continue to be a source of controversy for the foreseeable future.