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
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Mathematically interesting but it's not going to happen. McCain would have to turn too many very blue states red. He can't do that without widespread and blatant voter tampering.
You got that right. This scenario is not plausible and definitely requires some terrific rigging of the votes.
That could never happen.
Any you know what??? They WILL get away with it. Republicans seem to get away with everything they try to do. I don't know what state you are from, but what does your State Supreme Court look like? The republicans plan was well-thought out and executed, they succeeded.
And you don't think widespread and blatant voter tampering is a real, valid possibility? I do, although I hope I turn out to be a psycho conspiracy theorist who was very wrong.
The biggest fallacy in your 22% argument it the idea that McSame would get Zero (0) votes in some states. If he is going to win in his 20+ states he is going to carry a reasonable amount of the ‘Other’ states. So it is more believable he John the Congressman might win with 42%, but I don’t think that is really going to happen.
Excuse me, but I am really not understanding the tables above. Can someone clarify? I haven't been a past political follower so I just want to make sure I am understanding what I am reading. From my understanding majority votes when the electoral of that state, that they are split up like they are in the primary except for two states, one being Maine and I don't remember the second states. So even if he get's a percentage of the popular vote he doesn't acquire any electoral for that state. Am I correct or have I missed something when trying to educate myself.
If I'm reading this right, then yes all states are all or nothing with regards to electoral votes, with the exceptions of Maine and Nebraska. Maine splits theirs between two congressional districts and Nebraska, between three.
This is basically a 'bogus' analysis. All it takes to win a state is half the
popular vote in the state, plus a bit. That gets you all that state's electoral
votes (except Maine & NEBRASKA). That way, Obama or McCain COULD
win the election with half of half the popular vote. That is, with a quarter of
the total vote.
Another way of saying that half of all those Obama votes in NY, or California,
or Massachusetts (or any 'Blue' state) are just going to be wasted, because
getting more than half the popular vote in any given state is irrelevant to the
outcome. Don't try to take advantage of this & not vote, ok?
Actually, in most states, you don't need 50%+1, you simply need more than the other guys. In other words, if Obama were to get 34%, and McCain were to get 33% and Nader were to get 33% of the popular vote, Obama would get ALL the electoral votes, even though 66% of the people in the state voted AGAINST him!
The general election is predominantly plurality-takes-all at the state level. Maine and Nebraska proportionally allocate their 2 and 3 EVs, respectively. Some states, most notably Georgia, require a runoff election if the plurality is not a majority.
The primary is completely different, much more complicated, and very different between the parties. The GOP primary system is much closer to general election rules than the Dem system.
More accurately, Maine and Nebraska allocate the 2 and 3 EVs they get for their representatives by district, and the 2 each they get for their senators by the total vote in the state. Proportional, no. E.g., if Maine's 1st district went for Obama 10-1 and the 2nd district went for McCain 51-49, McCain would get 1 EV and Obama 3. But if the 1st went for Obama 52-48 and the 2nd for McCain 51-49, then assuming the same number of voters per district McCain would still get 1 and Obama 3.
It is winner take all in 48 states. Maine and Nebraska allocate by congressional district.
Win the states with the lowest ratio of population to electoral votes, and you can decrease your need to win the popular vote. Simple messed up old system.
One easy way to reform the electoral college system without amending the constitution or anything is already making the rounds among the states. States can agree to pledge their electoral representatives to the winner of the national popular vote instead of the winner of the individual state. Once states totaling 270 electoral votes agree to this it will be enacted and the winner of the popular vote will always win the electoral college vote.
Easy! Ask your state govt to sign on.
The one problem with this is that states are actually free to select their electors as they see fit. At the moment, we have a national consensus (what's up with Maine and Nebraska). Once you open the door to changing that method, then who's to say that certain states won't change it in a way that permanently disadvantages one party or one end of the political spectrum? There's the possibility of the process becoming even more chaotic as each state pursues it's own methodology and agenda. You see how ugly the Democratic primary process was. Just a thought...
Then why vote at all in those states?
I live in Missouri. What you are basically saying is for the Missouri government to tell the missouri voters that it doesn't really matter how they vote, the state will go with the national majority.
Good luck with that.
Most of us prefer our votes be tabulated, counted and cast.
Because if you don't vote it effects the National total, doesn't it? :)
I'm sorry but I live in MO as well.
I feel that there is an inequity in the system. I voted for Gore. Where was my representation in the EC when MO gave all it's 11 EC votes to Wingnut Dingbat II.
Pretty sure that as my vote was cast, it surely didn't count.
Maryland already has approved this - contingent on its approval in the other states.
No support for the notion that the EC can provide a mandate despite a low popular vote win?
Not from me, the fact that a loser of the PV can become President argues against it.
I'm not really big on trying to circumvent the constitution.
If there's a problem with the constitution, amend it.
If you cringe each time you hear the George W. Bush signed another "signing statement", then you know what I mean.
It's not circumvention though--the Constitution leaves it up to the states to decide how they will allocate their electoral votes. That's why Maine and Nebraska are able to split theirs by Congressional district.
There is absolutely *nothing* unconstitutional about this.
"Granted, the vote distributions are a bit far-fetche
You know--folks really need to stop torturing themselves with these hypotheticals and what-ifs. It's not about what could possibly happen but what will probably happen. Just vote and encourage everyone you know (and a few you don't) to vote and it will turn out fine. At this point, turnout is what matters. Check out fivethirty
Excellent post. I am on 538 all the time reassuring myself.
Nooooooooo
Dear Mr. Thomson, Nice article, but I would like to see one on how individuals can change America regardless of who wins the Presidential election. Thank you :)
McCain wins 'with just 47% of the electoral vote'?
C'mon. Try 'McCain wins with 47% of the POPULAR vote'.
271 electoral votes is a majority of ELECTORAL votes.
The 'worst' *designed-in* defect of the Electoral Vote system
is that the smallest states (population-wise) get extra electoral
votes, because each state (+DC) gets at least 3 votes. The 30
'Red' states have just under half the population, and just OVER
half the electoral votes, because of this peculiar 'defect'.
Furthermore, it is quite true (given the Electoral system) that
McCain could win with only half of the popular votes cast in
the 30 Red states (which contain half the US population),
so with just one-quarter of the total popular vote. Sad, but true.
Your scenario has McCain winning 34 state votes (+DC).
In that EXTREMELY unlikely event, if he doesn't get the
Presidency, THAT would be astonishing.
This is why the advice is: NO VOTES FOR THE REPO MAN.
MOST IMPORTANTL
The flip-side of this hypothesis is that if Obama wins the popular vote in the
20 Blue states (which have a bit more than half the US population, and half
of all the electoral votes) PLUS the electoral votes of a half dozen 'swing' states,
with just over half the popular vote in each instance, OBAMA wins the election,
with only a quarter of the total vote.
This is how it's going to happen, people.
As software developers use to say, that's not a defect--it's a feature. The populace doesn't elect the president--states do. The weighting was done so that the voice of the smaller states could not be ignored.
Actually, I've been doing some research on that. The reason for the electoral college was not so that the smaller states had more influence, it's so that the Southern, slave-owning states would have more influence. It's part and parcel with the 3/5ths compromise, where the South wanted to count every slave as a citizen for the purpose of the census, to get the most reps in the House, but not count them as citizens at all in any other purpose. The result of the compromise was that they would count every slave, but then for every five slaves they would have three citizens. They then made the electoral college so that those extra three citizens for every five slaves would help them elect the president!
What concerns me most is "McCain manages to outperform polls." Weren't such discrepancies the key to Ohio & Co. in the past?
Exactly. Is "manages to outperform polls" a euphemism for stuffing ballot boxes, voting machines that mysteriously switched vote to the GOP, towns of 1,000 casting 4,00 votes, and so on?
I think Obama's exhortation to "run through the finish line" is quite apt. No matter how far-fetched a McCain victory may seem to some, this is not the time for complacency. I want to see as big a landslide as possible so that (as they say) if it's not close, they can't cheat.
I've stated for years how it's unfair that a person could win a plurality in just 11 states (meaning get more votes than any other individual, but not a majority) and become President. I think that we either need to remove the electoral college (impossible without a Constitutional Amendment, unlikely to happen) or to bypass it, such as with the Popular Vote Interstate Compact (wherein the states choose their electors based on who wins the National popular vote, takes effect once 270 are represented by states following the compact)
PLEASE, don't scare us. We have come too far for that to happen.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
