"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

[mikeinmaryland]

In Philadelphia, at the close of the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin was asked by an interested woman, "Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" Franklin responded, "A republic, if you can keep it."

What the Constitution envisioned was a Republic, not a Democracy.

Democracy is simply a tyranny of the majority. Imagine being stranded on an island with 2 other people. A democracy would allow the other 2 people to vote to kill and eat you.

Those so eager to change the Constitution ought to spend more time reading it.

[mrbiker]

One problem popular voting might (probably would) solve - voter fraud. When dealing with a state, you only need to steal as many votes as would tip the state.

If trying to do it on a national level, the numbers would be too big to deal with. Any vote tampering would be obvious.

In addition, if you have 7 of 10 national polls showing one candidate ahead by 3-4 % the day before the election, and then it goes the other way, voter fraud would again be obvious.

[LeftRight]

Are you talking about voter fraud or election fraud? Voter fraud is where a person votes who shouldn't vote, or who votes where he shouldn't, or who votes more than once, etc.....

Election fraud is where one side messes up the other. For example, Ohio, 2004. In districts which tended to lean republican there were often too many voting machines for the district. As such, you could show up, vote and be out the door in minutes, no matter the time of day, or number of people already there. In districts which leaned towards the democrats you would often find voting locations which didn't have enough machines, and we heard stories of lines at democratic district voting locations reaching 3 miles. MILES!!! THAT would be election fraud!

[MarcusCassius]

It's a good article. Unfortunately it makes me feel as though for these elections, I have no voice. Very unfortunate considering the tickets. (Untested vs. Pretty and Old) I vote for hope, and that ain't goin' to PrettyOld. So, my vote doesn't matter. How do the Electors vote and what influences them? If we have a mere hundreds that actually matter, and the millions vote is but a token, I'd like to know who these people are responsible to and what their criteria is.

've spent these last weeks getting all fired up. Now it turns out that, not only does the Administration not have to be accountable to me, I don't even get to choose my own candidate. Sounds more like this isn't a Democracy at all. Excuse my naivite'. This is what we were all taught in school.

[graphite]

Nice argument, but it ignores just one tiny thing:

If I am a Democrat, and I live in Texas, my vote doesn't matter, because Texas votes overwhelming Republican.

And, if I am a Republican, and I live in Rhode Island, my vote doesn't matter, because that state always votes Democrat.

We are electing Federal candidates here, and yet too many votes are meaningless, because of the way the contests are currently constructed.

Worse yet, with so many states "in the bag," candidates concentrate most of their energies on the "swing states." The whole point of the Electorial College is to force candidates to construct platforms that appeal to the entire country, and instead, the effect is that most of the country is ignored.

The system is broken, and needs to be fixed. Unfortunately, when the winners only win because they "game the system," there is little incentive to do so.

[olmec]

Your vote does matter. People always talk about Gore losing Florida in 2000. How about his 'home state' (ha ha) of Tennessee? He lost it. Why? The Republicans did not run a candidate against Harold Ford, Jr., (D) in the ninth district for the House and he did not have a get the vote out drive. Overwhelmingly Democrat Memphis hardly voted, thus allowing Bush to win the state. Had each person in Tennessee voted as they usually did, Gore would have won Tennessee going away and Florida wouldn't have mattered. If you doubt it, look at the numbers for Shelby County and Memphis in previous presidential elections. Your vote definitely counts in your state because your state holds its own election for president based on the candidates who garnered enough support to be on the ballot in that state - not every candidate is on the ballot of every state. It also encourages you to get out and do something for the candidate or party of your choice. It also keeps the national government from making your individual choice and voice unheard.

[BJD44]

So...pleas­e remind me why I even BOTHER to vote. It doesn't make any matter. It's always the same silly states making any difference in the elections. Waste of my time...

That must be why they call it 'politics'­.....

[andyfromMA]

If the purpose of the electoral college was to make sure the "smaller" state had equal representation why not try using the baseball series example as a basis for the change.
For example: instead of relying on just popular vote nationwide make it so the candidate that wins the most states individually wins the prize. That would even the playing field and not allow them to focus their efforts on just the large population centers or the states with the most electoral votes. Each state in itself would be important to win. The candidate that wins 26 states wins the election.
Also while we are at it let's just have one nationwide primary election - everyone votes in the primaries on the same day. The top two vote getters from each party are the President and VP candidates for that party. Does away with all this foolishness and let's us common citizens get on with our lives without all the noise of politics.

[olmec]

People who whine or even discuss the popular vote on a nationwide basis are silly and wasting time. Beyond that, they fail to realize the importance of the federalism issue with our nation - states have some rights that will not be infringed upon by the national government. By the inspiration of our amazing Constitution each state holds its own election and submits the results to Washington. It is a great process that assures that each and every state counts. It is one of the founding principles of our country and will not change. How is congress set up? Two houses, one by population and one with each state equally represented so every state counts and groups cannot hold the rest of the nation hostage. This is a simple safeguard principle that our founders were so wise to argue, debate, compromise and agree upon. It is unfortunate that we have so many great things - people, places, freedoms, the list goes on and on - and we have such an ignorant population. What a waste! Our current populace is demonstrating why they as a whole are not deserving of the life that has been provided for them.

[Geeboy]

This article misses a couple of things. 1, the problem many have with the 2000 election wasn't just that Gore won the popular vote and lost the election, it was how W. and his team used literal intimidation (including violence) in Florida and how a conservative, but activist court, combined to give him the White House.

Also, I've been playing with the electoral map graphics at the NYTimes and seeing what happens when certain states go blue or red...seve­ral times I've come up with a 269-269 tie. The choice than goes to the House of Representatives who then must face the choice of going strictly with the popular vote, or perhaps making a partisan decision. A worst case scenario that might be as plausible as ever.

[daffodilbird13]

Very good points here. Most important to me about moving to popular vote election rules is the fact that candidates would be forced to campaign for every vote. Your examples of California and Georgia are right on. As it is now, candidates don't care about reaching voters in states they don't lead. This makes some votes more equal than others.

[theantibush]

You cannot reform the Electoral College until you reform popular voting in general. The orthodox democratic doctrine of All Are Created Equal, assigning equivalent vote weight across all voters, would have to yield to the reality that not all stay equal. Votes would have to be weighed according to a national criteria, perhaps based upon citizenship status, time in country, criminal record, age, education, community service, and so on, to prevent campaigners for public office from focusing on the lower intelligence median voter population for their majority.

This would be an improvement, as it would not only engage more high-quality, informed voters but also entice all voters to improve their standing through educational and community services, and to refrain from criminal activity. Otherwise, our present sub-prime leadership crisis across all elected offices would persist and most likely become even worse than it is now.

[LeftRight]

Why would you have to weight the votes??? If everyone is a citizen, and everyone who is a citizen is allowed to vote, then WHY would you need to weight their votes? Perhaps to try to get some desired outcome???? But then the vote is more meaningless than if you win the electoral college with 20%!

[Brainspore]

What you are describing is the very antithesis of democracy. Who would make the rules about which votes count more? Don't you think they might have a pretty big incentive to make sure that their constituents' votes counted more than everyone else's?

[boophus]

ABSOLUTELY NOT. This is Voter disenfranchisement. This is stinky elitism. While I find gullibility and religiosity appalling, every citizen counts even morons. They have to live in the country we make too. NO WAY NO DICTATORSHIP NO VOTER DISENFRANCHISement

[SaltySaltillo]

National polls will become increasingly meaningless as this election proceeds. We are now seeing state polls showing ridiculously dramatic ladnslide spreads between candidates in places like Alabama and Alaska. These all get averaged out into national polls. Remember: Reagan only got 50.7% of the popular vote in 1980 but crushed Carter in the electoral votes, whereas Bush in 2004 got 50.7% of the popular vote but barely beat Kerry in 2004. This race will be decided by 10 states. It is that simple.

[dwflyo]

Thank you for pointing out what actually happens in these superflous arguments about the PV. On point and emminently clear!

Bravo sir.

[edgeco1]

Good article.

For the record, GW Bush was the first candidate to get a Majority of the vote since Bush 41.
Clinton never did and neither did Gore!

edgeco1

[LeftRight]

Not in 2000. And also for the record, there were too many possible irregularities in the 2004 election to say with a certainty that he got a majority.

[MarcusCassius]

I gotta tell ya, what I've heard in comments like this, election after election, is the Right saying "We won, We won" Instead of, "We did a good job for America" , "Look at how much better America is because of us". I think they are winning the 'election' battle but not showing up for the 'America wins' wars. I feel the same rush when my party wins but I like it a thousand times more when my party leaves the country more whole and more wealthy, with more of a future. I can't say that about the Republicans.

That's why I have such concern about the Electorate. Rove had no problems dividing the nation on every subject, color, and belief, to get that BIG WIN. They got their BIG WIN, and America lost big time! When America becomes a small group of electors and the people are no longer counted, how much easier for someone like him to subvert the system?

[husbusfun]

Bravo.

Very true.

[LeftRight]

While I don't like the fact that Al Gore won the popular and lost the college vote, you are entirely correct! I happen to believe that we SHOULD get rid of the electoral college, or at least change the rules like the popular vote compact making its way through the states right now. But the fact of the matter is that AT THIS POINT IN TIME, in THIS election, it doesn't MATTER what the popular vote is!

[thinker08]

Our current system actually discourages voters from getting out to vote. For example: If they live in a traditionally red state and they are democrats, they won't bother, because they feel their vote won't count anyway. In order to truly give each person a voice and a guarantee that their vote does count, the current system should be changed. Every eligible voter in this country has a right to have their vote be counted individually ...

[LeftRight]

As I said, I don't like the electoral college, but as Charles points out, it's still the rules right now for this election. Trying to change it now is the same as the PUMAs coming out and claiming that we needed to count the popular vote in choosing the nominee, rather than the delegates