"Popular Vote" Claims Just A Myth

The 2008 presidential contest is shaping up to be a potential nail-biter, with polls showing voters nearly evenly split between Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama. Because of how tight the race is, we are once again faced with the possibility of the winner of the electoral college "losing the popular vote". This is causing concern on the part of many analysts and pundits, who recall one of the controversies of the 2000 election: claims that George W. Bush wasn't the real winner of the election because he "lost the popular vote". Some are likewise saying that if McCain or Obama win the electoral college without "winning the popular vote" that the result will be "illegitimate" or the new president will "lack a mandate".

Even knowledgeable observers seem to have come to accept "winning the popular vote" as some sort of standard, valid means of assessing voter preferences. For example, Nate Silver, the skilled statistician of the election modeling site fivethirtyeight.com, recently raised the issue of what the impact might be of a tied electoral college result being decided by a Democrat-controlled Congress, in the event that John McCain "won the popular vote".

My problem with all of this is betrayed by my use of quotation marks above: "winning the popular vote" doesn't mean what most people think it does, and the conclusions that people draw from this bogus metric are myths. Worse, the claims made about the popular vote not only are incorrect, they are very damaging to the electoral process and how the nation assesses election outcomes.

Were the Bronx Bombers "Cheated"?

The year is 1960, and the underdog Pittsburgh Pirates face off against the feared New York Yankees in the World Series. The Pirates take the first game in a squeaker, 6-4, before being blown out in the next two games, the Yankees winning 16-3 and 10-0 to take the lead. The Pirates aren't demoralized, though - they fight back, winning the next two games 3-2 and 5-2 on the strength of good pitching. But the Bronx Bombers strike again, demolishing the Pirates 12-0 to tie the series at three games each. The pivotal seventh game goes into the bottom of the ninth inning, when Pirate Bill Mazeroski hits a pitch over the left field wall to win the series for Pittsburgh by a score of 10-9.

But wait a minute. Did Pittsburgh really win? I mean, the game of baseball is all about scoring runs, isn't it? And if we add up the runs, it's clear the Yankees were better: they outscored Pittsburgh 55-27. Clearly the Yankees were really the winners - the Pirates' World Series victory was illegitimate!

Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? After all, the goal of each team was to win four games, not get the most runs over the course of the series. Yet this is exactly what people do when they talk about "winning the popular vote". This measure is like adding up runs in a baseball series: it is tallying the votes of 51 separate contests, which is not equivalent to properly measuring popular vote across an entire nation.

The Rules Determine the Goal; the Goal Determines the Strategy

What's wrong with summing the votes from the various states and the District of Columbia and using those numbers as an indicator of which candidate got the most votes? The problem is the same in politics as it is in baseball: the teams go after a goal based on the rules put in place before the contest begins. As mentioned, the Pirates and Yankees went into their series knowing that the objective was to win four games, not get the most total runs. Similarly, both political parties go into a presidential election knowing that the goal is 270 electoral votes, not getting 50.1% of the popular vote.

In turn, the goal dictates the strategy used in the contest. In both baseball and politics, each team has only a limited number of resources, and to win, they must allocate them in the most effective manner possible. Consider game 3 of the 1960 World Series: the Pirates were already down 10-0 before the game was half over. They might not have necessarily given up on winning such a game, but since they knew they had a long series ahead of them, they might well have tried to save some of their pitching strength for later games. Similarly, the Yankees probably wouldn't have pulled out all the stops to try to score as many runs as possible, since the game was well in hand. Both teams would try much harder in a close game where they each had to fight hard to win.

This happens in exactly the same manner in presidential elections. Consider the three states with the most voters in the nation: California, Texas and New York. Have you seen Barack Obama or John McCain running ads or campaigning heavily in these places? Of course not. Why? Because they are "laughers", like a 16-3 baseball game. Both Obama and McCain are trying to win electoral votes, not popular votes, and since the outcome of these three states is already clear, they won't waste resources on them. They will save their advertising money and other tools for the "battleground" states like Ohio, Colorado and Florida, which are equivalent to "pitching duels" in baseball.

The very same distortions occur when it comes to voters and their enthusiasm levels: people know when their presidential vote matters a great deal, and when it doesn't, and this impacts turn-out rates. For example, which state is more likely to have a high percentage of voters for this year's presidential election: Nevada, where John McCain currently holds a lead of less than 5%, or Oklahoma, where his lead is over 30%?

I Come to Neither Bury Nor Praise the Electoral College

There are arguments both for and against eliminating the electoral college and going to a straight across-the-nation single vote for president, but this article is not intended to argue for or against this change. Rather, the point is that unless and until we do make this move, any conclusions drawn about the "popular vote" are not only not legally binding, they are deceptive and damaging to assessments of presidential elections.

If we really want to elect a president based on who would win a majority of votes in a straight popular vote election across the nation, then we need to change the rules in advance. With the new goal made clear, both sides could then develop strategies intended to pursue it. And a straight popular vote presidential election would be a very different one from what we are accustomed to.

In such a vote, individual states cease to matter, and the objective would be to appeal to masses of voters directly. Both Republicans and Democrats would be heavily invested in the big states, because that's where the people are. Even if John McCain were behind by a lot in states like California and New York, it would be worthwhile for him to campaign there to narrow Obama's lead. The same would be true of Obama in states like Texas or Georgia.

We would see huge advertising efforts nationwide, because every vote would be worth the same amount in any state. We would not see massive advertising efforts in small states like New Hampshire and Nevada. In fact, we'd probably see little state-targeted advertising at all.

But this is not how we do things today, and until a change occurs, any "popular vote" numbers drawn by summations of 51 independent state tallies are bogus. Some might argue that even if these popular vote sums aren't perfect, we should use them anyway because that's the best measure of popular vote sentiment that we have, but this is a fallacy. Bad information is worse than no information - we are far better off accepting the fact that we don't know what the true popular vote totals would be across the nation, than drawing harmful, incorrect conclusions from invalid numbers.

This article cross-posted at my blog, AABW.

Comments

[mvy]

The "normal way" of changing the method of electing the President is by changes in state law.

Historically, virtually all of the previous major changes in the method of electing the President have come about by state legislative action. The people had no vote for President in most states in the nation's first election in 1789. With changes in state laws governing the appointment of presidential electors, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in all states.

In 1789, only 3 states used the winner-take-all rule (awarding all of a state's electoral vote to the candidate who gets the most votes in the state). However, as a result of changes in state laws, the winner-take-all rule is now currently used by 48 of the 50 states.

In 1789, it was necessary to own a substantial amount of property in order to vote; however, as a result of changes in state laws, there are now no property requirements for voting in any state .

The "normal process" of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified the Constitution, as action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

[mvy]

To make every vote in every state politically relevant and equal in presidential elections, support the National Popular Vote bill.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The bill would take effect only when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes (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 been approved by 21 legislative chambers (one house in CO, AR, ME, NC, and WA, and two houses in MD, IL, HI, CA, MA, NJ, RI, and VT). It has been enacted into law in Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These states have 50 (19%) of the 270 electoral votes needed to bring this legislation into effect.

see http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

susan

[Johnagain]

Would it be possible to design an electoral system that balanced the influence of the popular vote with that of winning a state's majority, akin to the way our Congress balances representation based on population (House) with representation based on states (Senate)?

For example, in a Presidential election, a candidate would win if they had a majority of states (irregardless of size), plus a majority of the popular votes. More weight could be given to the actual number of states won (27 states needed for example), so as to prevent the entire election from hinging on just the 3 or 4 most populous states. Conversely, more weight could be given to the percentage of the popular vote, such that a majority of states wouldn't be needed. In such a scenario, a candidate that got say 60% of the popular vote, would only need 23 states or one that got 28 states, would only need 45% of the popular vote.

Or some variation on this theme.

[Svendem]

HuffPost's Pick

Regarding "lacking a mandate" - I thought that when Bush was elected. I thought his talk of 'compassionate conservatism', history of bipartisanship and the fact that he'd lost the popular vote, would lead to him bridging the divide and being a cooperative, bipartisan, leader.

What we got, was a hardcore, right-wing edge, no-compromise, neoconservative government.

So no, The popular vote doesn't matter. But it SHOULD. Not necessarily in a legal sense, but in a moral one. Because Democracy has never meant the dictatorship of 51% over the other 49%. Democracy isn't winner-takes-all, even if the presidential race is. You need to respect those who you disagree with, and that respect needs to be shown all the more, the weaker your majority is.

[inewsmaster]

Party's over folks. All that's left now is to do the "last rights" on the Republican ticket. The vote will be so overwhelming for Obama that it will literally bury McCain under all the trash he and his cronies have brought into the campaign. Anyone who votes for McBush (errrrr. McCain) is not only an idiot, but morally bankrupt. After what the REPUBLICAN Bush Administration has done to this country one should be ashamed to call themselves a Republican. They should all be made to wear "Scarlet R" T-Shirts!

[hypnotoad72]

That's "last rites", and people were saying the same old stuff in 2004 and even in 2006, when a (minor) majority by the Democrats was finally obtained.

Please cut the hubris and save the champagne until after the Democrats win. If they actually do win.

[LeftRight]

First, in 2004 no one that I knew or heard was talking about how the democrats had it in the bag.

Second, in 2006, that was a LANDSLIDE!!! The republicans didn't win a single election!! They won some of their own incumbents back, but every race where there was a real challenge, they LOST. In Congressional politics what happened in 2006 was HUGE!

[meconella]

Thought provoking article and comments.
As a resident of a very blue state, there often is little reason to go to the polls if the presidential race is all you are focusing on. Usually however, there are other important things on the ballot that need attention, so many of us still continue to vote.

[riverjones]

Have you ever heard the saying "two Georgias", "two New Yorks", "two Illinois", "two Californias"? Well what seperates the two? Urban vs. Rural ! There is more disparity between how rural and urban voters pick a president than, there is disparity between states. And where do the vast majority of people live? In the urban areas of course. So here's what would happen in a popular vote situation... If you wanted to get elected president within the rules of a popular vote, you give New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, etc. exactly what THEY want. Promise a tax rebate for those living in certain zip codes for their patriotic attempt to conserve green space and trees by living on top of one another and you're guaranteed to get elected. Promise to raise taxes on those "resource hogs" living in the country, farmers, timber companies, and promise to outlaw all forms of hunting. You can tell urbanites whatever THEY want to hear and ignore the cares and needs of those living outside of the most heavily populated areas of the country and you can still be elected by a landslide. If you think the candidates have a narrow focus now, just imagine what it would be like under a popular vote system. It would definitely change the game, and if you didn't live in a big city, then you would be left with the same old feeling that your vote just doesn't count.

[ThomSimmons]

There is a serious problem with this so called insight. It assumes the analogy is perfectly accurate--reasoning by analogy is a very common and very invalid approach. The elections are not, in this case, a baseball game and insisting that they are that at all is very cynical. The chap who pointed out what happens if you are a democrat in Texas hit the nail on the head. There are others who have pointed out that the system is imperfect and for good reason. If anything from one to a small group of State elections can dictate who is the President for the entire country, the system is in need of serious repair.

Above all however, this system denigrates any claim to being a democracy--the more power concentrated in the hands of a few, the more we are an oligarchy, not a democracy. Even our claims to being a republic are made shallow.

[Brainspore]

The popular vote may not have any standing in who takes office but it is a good indicator of where the nation's preferences lie. If a politician wins an election without winning the popular vote he at the very least has a MORAL obligation to do his best to consider the wishes of the majority of voters even if he has no legal obligation to do so.

That said, I'm all for changing the structure of our electoral process. For one thing I'd love to see some kind of runoff election system that gave a fighting chance to candidates that weren't from either of the two big parties. Of course, the problem is that the people who are in a position to change the rules all got into power through the current system, so there's not much chance of them abandoning it.

[LeftRight]

Not to mention the fact that the two parties have gamed the system through the laws that they write to make it practically impossible to win if you are NOT supported by one of them!

[ogicyurab]

This is a very well-reasoned and edifying description of our current system. As a voter in an up-for-grabs state (Pennsylvania), I find that I am paying far more attention to the candidates' views than I did when I lived previously in Maryland, which was usually a foregone conclusion in Presidential elections.
My guess is that, in a direct election, candidates would focus on appealing directly to economic or ethnic groups. We might just end up with a 'truer' notion of their feelings and opinions if we eliminate the geographical filter.

[ElBruce]

This is a terrific insight. I never thought of it that way. Although I agree with the others here that the electoral college should be done away with for Presidential elections, that doesn't make the popular vote a significant statistic under the current system.

[unequalvotes]

I think the bigger question everybody should be asking is why isn’t my vote worth the same amount as the vote of a person in another state. That is the disturbing part.

How would a person in Texas feel to know that while close, there vote not worth as much as the vote of a person in a small state?

It gives me great pleasure to know that while my state always goes the same way, my vote is worth more then the vote of somebody in Ohio.

The 2000 election showed the basic flaw of the Electoral College in that the person with fewer total votes can win. How can that, in any scenario, be considered fair?

[LeeDittmann]

This is a well argued post, and one that equally applied to Senator Clinton's situation re Michigan and Florida and one which many of her supporters did not "get". If these states had not defied party rules, there would have been different kinds of campaigns going on and probably very different results. And perhaps we'd have a more united Democratic party than we do now, no matter who won. The moral: once the game begins, stick to the rules. If the rules need changing, do it well in advance of the game.
As for changing the electoral college: Probably most of us would agree that it needs changing, but not how it should be changed. Some would do away with it entirely, others would keep it but do away with the winner-take-all system within states, for instance. We ought to be able to agree that at the very least, the results should be automatic, with the actual outcome of the election not dependent on pledged delegates to the electoral college. But given the difficulty of getting constitutional amendments passed, I doubt this will happen unless there is some rogue funny business among electoral college delegates that actually throws an election the other way than expressed in the awarding of electoral votes.

[RyanRose]

This baseball comparison is such an "apples-to-some fruit never heard of" analogy. Really poor.

Now, if you want to use baseball for this comparison, here is how it works: As you were trying to explain that the election is the result of multiple contests (the many states), then the correct comparison would be a single baseball game composed of multiple innings--not a series, which would be like holding a run-off election.

Now, if we were to use this correct analogy of "innings of a game" instead of "games in a series," he could more accurately apply your logic as follows, albeit to opposite conclusions. Let me explain: If we were to take the winner of a baseball game as who won the most innings (or had the most hits, either one), you would create a system fans would reject, as it does not account for the total runs in (or votes, in the analogy). Thus, you could have a contest where a team won the game having only scored one run, winning multiple innings and yet be bested by the opposing team in the last inning by six runs. That, my friend, is the Electoral College--a system predicated on the winning of individual innings (states) over the course of one game rather than the most runs in (votes).

This analogy is far more correct and only goes to underscore how the electoral system is flawed.

[riverjones]

The problem with your analogy is that each inning (state) has equal weight in determining the winner. However, that's not the case with the electoral college as each state has the same number of votes as it has represenatives in the house and senate (population based). Our founding fathers were so brilliant, I'm often in awe at how well they thought this thing out. They also realized they were no perfect and they put in place a means of changing the wonderful document they wrote. If the current system is sooo messed up, it should be simple to convince 2/3 of the represenatives to change it. So I say, Go For It !

[LeftRight]

2/3 of the representatives, and then 3/4 of the states.

[RyanRose]

Actually, the analogy is correct, as hits would determine the the winner of the inning. Innings are not even in their conclusion. If that thought is too complex (or if you are unfamiliar with baseball), then just substitute innings for hits in my analogy. Both work.

And as for praising the wisdom of the Founding Fathers, they didn't come up with an electoral college based on a winner-take-all system; that was formulated far later.

[abarafi]

I'm not sure what the logic of the electoral college is (was). I guess the founders felt that smaller states should not be overwhelmed by the population numbers of larger states. In any case, it is ridiculous that someone could win the presidency without a majority of the popular vote. The author is correct. Today's rules say you win by gettng the magic 270 electoral votes. So we end up with a few states that swing the election one way or another. Along with all the other change Obama is proposing, a change in that electoral college process would be a worthy goal. It might also change the unfairness of how tax dollars are spent. We hear a whoosh as California tax dollars get sucked out of the state and spent on homeland security in that bastion of terrorism risk - South Dakota. Or, they are disproportiontely spent on highway systems having a fraction of the traffic of highways that are going to seed.

[olmec]

Please take a basic civics course so you can understand that any spending MUST be passed by BOTH houses of Congress - represented by both equality and population - as is the electoral college. It is so simple if one will just look at what was done!