How McCain Could Win With 22% of the Popular Vote

That's no typo.

Palo Alto-based systems analyst John Felleman, a student of electoral college quirks, has created a statistical scenario wherein a candidate is rejected by 78% of voters and still gains the Oval Office (see table 1, below).

"Granted, the vote distributions are a bit far-fetched," Felleman says. "But even more believable scenarios show how you can win the presidency by exploiting the electoral college."

Felleman shows (in table 2) how, with just 47% of the popular vote, John McCain could very well collect 271 electoral votes and win next Tuesday (victory requires a minimum of 270). Felleman has used current polling numbers with three plausible variables:

1) 30% of undecided voters vote McCain.
2) 3% of voters stating allegiance to Obama actually choose McCain in the voting booth.
3) McCain manages to outperform polls by 1% to 5% in Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Missouri, Colorado, Pennsylvania and Nevada.

Such an outcome would hardly be unprecedented. Remember Richard Nixon's demolition of Hubert Humphrey in 1968, 301 electoral votes to 191? In that election Nixon received 511,944 more popular votes than Humphrey, a margin of victory of less than one percent.

And then there was 2000, where (in the event you're new to Earth) the winning candidate received 543,816 less popular votes than the loser.

Felleman explains how the electoral college enables this: "A Wyoming voter has four times the influence that a California voter does on the outcome of the election. And voters in twelve states have a vote with at least twice the influence of a Texas, Florida or California voter." (See table 3)

1969's proposed Bay-Celler Amendment required the winning team to garner at least 40% of the popular vote. The measure died at the hands of small-state conservatives--Democrats as well as Republicans--who felt it would truncate their states' influence.

Had the founding fathers been equipped with PDAs with algorithmic calculation features to account for trends in modern population density and political dynamics, perhaps the Constitution would have offered a more balanced solution.

There's no time like the present to reflect on a system that allows a candidate to gain office regardless of the popular will.

The Huffington Post is officially open to proposed alternatives.

Follow Keith Thomson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/kqthomson

Comments

[jacqmac]

So this is a reason WHY we NEED NOT BE COMPLACENT AND COUNT ON LOW VOTER TURNOUT!!
VOTE!! VOTE EARLY! And by the way, early voting results show that Obama is leading in several states where he NEEDS to and in several others as 'insurance'. HOWEVER, KEEP VOTING!! GET to the POLLS NOW!! AVOID THE LINES AND THE RUSH!! CALL your LOCAL ELECTION OFFICE FOR INFORMATION about your REGISTRATION, and your PRECINCT. If you cannot or WILL NOT VOTE EARLY, VOTE ON NOVEMBER 4! AFTER you VOTE, GO GET PEOPLE WHO HAVEN'T VOTED AND TAKE THEM TO THE POLLS!! VOLUNTEER TO WORK ON THE ELECTION!
VOTE!! VOTE!! VOTE!!!

[NWBrunette]

The mathematician's never-ending dilemma - but painstakingly accurate, or be a member of the real world.

[nellie]

NC is going for Obama. It looks like this scenario is a no-go.

[McFlipFlop]

And PA, and CO, and OH, and FL.

[Lastamendment]

Just the kind of hair-raising horror one would expect going into the Halloween weekend.

I know the fairness of elections is a tremendously complicated topic, but winning with 22% of the vote is just ridiculous - just about perfectly ANTI-democratic.

The Electoral College needs to be amended, if not outright abandoned. One benefit of eliminating the Electoral College would be that it would be much harder to suppress voting based on residency. All the trouble with students being told they needed to vote in their home states would be moot in a straight popular vote system.

Maybe something like this might work (or not!):
1. In order to get all of a state's electoral votes, a candidate would have to win 2/3 of the popular vote. Otherwise, each candidate would get a proportional split. But rather than cherry-picking states the way the GOP tried to do with California, this would be a constitutional amendment for apportioning electoral votes in all states.
2. Electoral votes would be based on the proportion of voter turnout. If turnout is 33%, then only 33% of the electoral votes would be awarded, based on the system in item 1.

I'm sure there are a lot of pros and cons offered by both sides of this issue, and who knows, some purported solutions might be worse than what we have now. But at least alternatives should be given serious thought.

[DCAce]

I've always liked the idea of a parliamentary government­...but it would take a constitutional convention to get us there...an­d I suspect we'd not be happy with the possibilities.

[BlackRam]

It is easy to eliminate this problem, repeal Public Law 62-5. This is the law that limits the House of Representatives to 435 members, thus also limiting the Electorial college to 535 (the college equals the voting seats in Congress). This artifically low number means that our democratic republic represents small states better than my home state of California. This could also help independants and small political parties win seats in Congress.

[mmorning2]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Xnk9aqih8o&feature=channel

this is hilarious, for obama supporters who may feel too confident.­.....

OBAMA '08

[NoSandwiches]

The 22% will never fly. That just isn't how those states roll.

It ticks me off that those states in which one voter counts the most tend to be Republican.

I used to get upset about the alphabetical nature of things--Washington never got to be counted because it was all over before they got to us in the vote countdown in the nomination ceremonies. Not this year.

Then I got upset because the east coast would be calling the election before we got to the polls. We all vote by mail now...I

Now I'm torqued again.
Thanks a lot!

[wordvarc]

Oh my God...WHAT­?...HOW...­WHY?...


Godspeed Obama.

[kindlingman]

I oppose eliminating the electoral college. Currently the President is selected by the electoral college. Those electors are determined by the States in accordance with their own votes. Moving away from the electoral college permits high density states to overshadow low density states completely. Would anyone like California, New York, and Florida to always determine who will be President? I would not..
This is the United States. Each state can determine how its electors are apportioned in accordance with the State election. All electors may go to one candidate or they may be apportioned as determined by each State. State's rights. We do not have a national election process nor should we.

[McFlipFlop]

States get their say in the Senate.

The President should be elected by popular vote. One man, one vote. Period.

[avicenna]

Well, it just happened in Canada. Only 22% of the voting population voted for the Conservatives (aka Tories led by Stephen Harper) - and they were reinstated as the leaders of another minority gov't. To add salt to the wound, only 59% of eligible voters made it to the polls because of apathy and polls showing that nothing will change and we'll likely end up with another minority no matter which way you cut the cake (we had 4 major parties running in the last election - with the left of center group split 3 ways). So the lesson to Americans: don't be complacent - get thee rear to the polling booth.

[RevSpaminator]

Your scenario is a bit far fetched, but mathematically possible. (Never underestimate the ability of a crook to manipulate numbers, right Mr. Rove?)

But, we have to remember that just because a candidate wins the popular vote, the state's electors don't all have to cast their ballot that way. Maybe they could vote for Hillary Clinton or Ralph Nader, or whomever they choose. There is no federal law demanding who they vote for. Not all states have laws that demand electors vote for the winner of the popular vote in that state.

Have we seen crooked elections? We have certainly seen some questionable situations. What makes anyone believe that electors cannot be bribed or coerced into voting against the will of the people?

[research]

"If you look back in history, NONE of the main founding fathers wanted the electoral college. Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, for example, were opposed to a system that would adulterate democracy, but just like how Jefferson was forced to take the anti-slavery clause out of the Declaration of Independence to appease the South, this system was created to get reluctant smaller states to joined. "

http://calitreview.com/44

Popular vote Should Win!

Go Obama!

Look at the Disaster BushCo as all the evidence you need to prove how bad the electoral college is.

[Vickster]

Let's not forget the men who wrote the Constitution were suspicious of a tyranny of the majority, thus the electoral college was created to provide some parity between rural areas and the more densely populated urban areas. That said, this doesn't mean we shouldn't consider ways to improve the system.

[TheNinthwave]

I think the electoral college is a good check and balance against the will of the people. Our founding fathers were aware that checks and balances needed to be in all directions and that the will of the people is not always the most prudent action for a nation. The electoral college was to protect from a mob mentality. The system has flaws but the ideal is valid. We tend to forget how easy the masses can be driven by fear to do that which is against their own interest.

[Vickster]

We shouldn't forget that the men who created the Constitution were also suspicious of a tyranny of the majority. Thus the electoral college was created so the urban majorities wouldn't have more power than those who lived in rural areas. That said, it doesn't mean we can't consider ways to improve the system.