Federalized Democracy: How We Elect the President -- and a Prediction

As a defender of the electoral vote system for electing the President of the United States, I cannot resist tracking the polls every four years and placing little bets on the final victory total (270 or more out of 538).

The Virtues of the Way We Do It

Briefly, there are several virtues in using electoral votes, apportioned amongst the 50 states and the District of Columbia, to elect a president. In modern times--with one exception*--it has been the case that the electoral vote total exaggerates the margin of victory in the popular vote. Secondly, the system deflates the strength of minor parties while amplifying the margin of victory of the winner.

Except in Nebraska and Maine, electoral votes are awarded on a winner-take-all basis within each state. The Democratic and Republican parties have to capture pluralities of the popular votes cast in each state.

The electoral vote system has obviously encouraged a two-party system by almost always having narrowed the election to a race between the two major party candidates. A different system, i.e. awarding the Presidency to the popular vote winner nationwide, would encourage minor (or "maverick") parties or candidacies. There would be a greater possibility of sectional third parties; and the ever-present threat that dissident wings of the Republican and Democratic parties might bolt and run separately. More militant wings of the existing parties could proliferate. "Splinter" parties, that is, based on ethnicity, or economic region, or religion, or gender.

The electoral vote system is a practical way to extract from the popular will a non-sectional, countrywide choice for president--because of the necessity to campaign in all regions of the United States to put together a combination of 270, or more, electoral votes. The presidential race of 2008 is a perfect case in point.

The Issue of Federalism

More important than direct or plebiscitary democracy in choosing a president is the issue of federalism. Our presidential elections are, in part, federally democratic--and not nationally democratic. State lines channel and organize the popular will. The unit rule--winner-take-all--makes the states as electoral entities permanently important. Democracy itself is not at stake.

Because of the complexity of our pluralistic society we value local democratic responsiveness to geographically-based minorities. As Robert Dahl of Yale taught us, we have what amounts to a system of (numerical) minorities' rule in this country.

The Bottom Line

Thus, the decision we make every four years is about choosing which shifting portion of an overall democratic electorate will temporarily capture the White House. Term it national majoritarian, in counting electoral votes.

The bottom line is that the electoral vote system replaces numerical uncertainty (the outcome of the popular vote divided three or more ways) with an unambiguously transparent constitutional majority. That sustains the legitimacy of the electoral result.

* NOTE: The awarding in effect of Florida's electoral votes to George W. Bush in 2000 by the abnormal and extra-constitutional decision of the Supreme Court to interrupt the re-count of the popular vote for president by the state of Florida--even though Al Gore had won more popular votes nationwide and probably within Florida, as well--remains an awesome usurpation of power by the high Court that can rightly be characterized as a crime against the established order. NOTHING in the Constitution, laws, or precedents, had ever envisioned a role for the Court in resolving such a momentous "political question." Under the Constitution and laws of the United States, the election of a president, in the case of a disputed election, had been left entirely to Congress and to the states under our federal system of government. The case of Bush v. Gore will live in historical infamy.

PREDICTIONS

For one more election cycle, I hereby stick my neck out and predict which states Barack Obama and John McCain will win on Nov. 4; and the separate totals in electoral votes they will amass in the contest for the presidency:

States for Obama

California (55); Colorado (9); Connecticut (7); Delaware (3); D.C. (3); Florida (27); Hawaii (4); Illinois (21); Iowa (7); Maine (4); Maryland (10); Massachusetts (12); Michigan (17); Minnesota (10); Nevada (5); New Hampshire (4); New Jersey (15); New Mexico (5); New York (31); North Carolina (15); Ohio (20); Oregon (7); Pennsylvania (21); Rhode Island (4); Vermont (3); Virginia (13); Washington (11); Wisconsin (10).

TOTAL: 353.

States for McCain

Alabama (9); Alaska (3); Arizona (10); Arkansas (6); Georgia (15); Idaho (4); Indiana (11); Kansas (6); Kentucky (8); Louisiana (9); Mississippi (6); Missouri (11); Montana (3); Nebraska (5); North Dakota (3); Oklahoma (7); South Carolina (8); South Dakota (3); Tennessee (11); Texas (34); Utah (5); West Virginia (5); Wyoming (3).

TOTAL: 185.

Comments

[SCG]

Connecticut has had, turn out in the high 70% range, projected to reach 90% in this election

Yet the same 8 electors.

And a large state, could have a low turn out, and not bothering to vote. Yet those few, count for more.

Is that fair?

[SCG]

P.S. Correction "7" electors, our population dropped after the 91' Bush recession.

[jpnairn]

As has been pointed out, this defense of the electoral college is based on false assumptions. As noted, the "virtues" of the system could just as easily be seen as vices.

[UrbanInterloper]

You categorize the tendency of our electoral system to marginalize minority voices and parties as a "virtue?" Nothing could be further from the truth. The electoral college and two-party dominance has proven only to be good at fostering bitter divisiveness.

Consider:

California, population 36,553,215, has 55 electoral college votes, or 1 electoral college representative per 664,604 voters.

Wyoming, population 522,830, has 3 electoral college votes, or 1 electoral college representative per 174,277 voters.

In other words, Wyoming votes count nearly four (3.8) times as much as Californians in our national election. How is this anything but unjust?

Half the country lives in nine states, but that 50% of the population has only 241 electoral college votes--a mere 44.8% of the total. Again, how is this anything but unjust?

You defend the two-party duopoly by worrying about a candidate winning without the majority. This is simplistic. You willfully ignore run-off elections and ranked-choice voting, both of which are very commonplace, as well as much simpler and fairer. The electoral college system betrays an inherent distrust of the citizenry to choose their own destiny.

[sowhatdemos]

Well, under your scenero, Gore won in 2000 and the supreme court would/should not interfer with a STATE BASED process. So it was illegal.
So Gore should have been our President acording to your calculations.
Works for me, except it didn't work. Slime bags made sure of that!!

[ParaplegicNomad]

NO! "The most popular guy" winning is the same thing as marginalizing minority voices. In a straight-up popular vote, only the majority voice matters.

The electoral college, by the math, pushes the individual voice higher.

Consider: if 50% of Americans live in 9 states, does it mean those 9 states should have the right to dictate national policy to the other 41 states? Even if those 9 states have no grasp on the priorities and issues of the population of those other 41 states? Isn't that "marginalizing" the minority?

The electoral college forces the candidates to craft policy that appeals to a wide range of Americans. It tamps down the extremes and forces the candidates toward the middle. THIS IS A GOOD THING! Extreme policies that would appeal to half of Americans while offending the other 50% (or 49.9999999­99%) do not survive. That's how you foster stability in the union. Is it at the expense of sweeping social changes that half of us would like to see in our lifetimes? Sometimes. Does it keep us from engaging in Civil Wars every three generations? And isn't that worth the cost?

Read the math. This article is old, but the math stands.

http://discovermagazine.com/2004/sep/math-against-tyranny

[MofoMojo]

This was a very unconvincing article. Tell me again why a Wyoming resident's vote should count as much as four from California or New York?

[ChaiKat]

Call me crazy, but shouldn't the most popular guy win? Isn't that what it's all about? Gore won the most votes, most popular, yet that didn't count?

[Poboy]

The 15th Amendment to the US Constitution grants the federal government the authority to nationalize ALL elections, include for state offices, and the US Congress should use this authority to stop these states from applying all kinds of trickery and devices to block, hinder, disrupt the voting process of citizens of the US.

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

The can be done if it is the will of the people.

[cvandijk1]

I can't see how tamping down true democracy is a virtue. Only two parties are legitimate?

Heaven forbid we actually get to hear ideas from the Green Party, The Libertarian Party, The Democratic Socialists. Heaven forbid.

The electoral college also forces only a handful of states to decide the most important decision this country makes every four years.

How is that a virtue?

A popular vote, with the technology currently available, forces the candidates to run everywhere, to compete for every vote. As a Democrat formerly living in Utah, I knew my vote did not count for anything more than a handful of local races. Many Democrats chose not to even vote.

I currently live in New York City and my Republican friends feel their votes don't matter here.

They are right.

Instead candidates are forced to divide and conquer a small handful of voters; one in every six states.

One sixth of our nation decides who is president.

And since you mention the theft of the election in Florida, we might as well mention the theft of 2004 in Ohio and possibly the theft of 2008 in Virginia, Colorado, North Carolina, Ohio and Florida.

Is it any surprise that the GOP has only targeted voters in the "swing states" in their attempt to prevent people from voting? How much more difficult would it be for parties to highjack the electoral process if they had to do it in all fifty states.

The electoral college has to go.

[peterg76]

While not perfect, the electoral college does ensure an element of geographic distribution. However, eliminating challengers to the two-party oligarchy and exaggerating margins are hardly positives.