Electoral College vs. national popular vote? Choose option C

James Alan Fox
| Contributor

With less than a month left until Election Day, the presidential race is remarkably close and is often described as a neck-and-neck race. Regardless of whether Vice President Kamala Harris or former President Donald Trump is ahead in general election polls, that lead is well within the margin of error.

Despite the virtual tie, the Harris campaign characterizes her as an underdog – and that is indeed the case because of the unusual method by which US presidential elections are decided.

In an appearance on HBO's “Real Time with Bill Maher,” veteran Democratic strategist James Carville pointed out the recurring truth that the Electoral College is stacked against Democratic presidential candidates in the existing landscape. “We have to win the popular vote by three votes to win the Electoral College,” Carville said.

The bias lies in the method by which Electoral College votes are awarded to states — that is, according to the size of their congressional delegations. Votes for the number of congressional districts (i.e., members of the House of Representatives) are divided appropriately based on population. But then two additional Electoral College votes allocated to each state (for each state's two senators) unfairly benefit smaller states.

Michigan, for example, is ten times more populous than South Dakota, but only has five times as many Electoral College votes. A correction of two fewer votes per state (and Washington DC), making the number of electoral votes (like the number of members of the House of Representatives) proportional to the population, would have put Al Gore ahead of George W. Bush in the 2000 election campaign (225 vs. 211 ). with the referendum.

Opinion: Trump shoots Detroit in Detroit. The joke is on him.

A complicated mechanism, a flawed approach

Equating Electoral College votes with congressional districts might at first glance suggest that all states could simply allocate their Electoral College votes on a district-by-district basis—like Nebraska and Maine. However, this would only further encourage gerrymandering in determining district boundaries.

The reduction of two votes per state would not have changed the outcome of the 2016 election, in which Donald Trump received 77 more Electoral College votes than Hillary Clinton, even though her vote total exceeded his by 2.9 million. Under a modified Electoral College system, Clinton would still have lost, receiving 191 votes to Donald Trump's 245 votes.

But there is another problem. The winner-take-all approach to allocating Electoral College votes is flawed because it treats a large margin in one state the same as a narrow victory in another. If the modified Electoral College votes for each state had been awarded to each candidate in proportion to each state's voting results (and rounded for convenience), Clinton would have prevailed over Trump by 12 electoral votes, 224 to 212.

One might answer, as many believe, that we should abolish the Electoral College altogether in favor of the total number of electoral votes. And in fact, a Clinton victory in the Electoral College, in which she would receive 51.3% of those votes, is double that, 224 to 212, virtually identical to her 51.1% lead over Trump in the national popular vote.

These changes should not be viewed as an automatic advantage for the Democratic candidate, but rather for the candidate with the greatest voter support. In 2004, the last time a Republican won the popular vote, George W. Bush beat John Kerry in the Electoral College by 35 votes. Under the modified Electoral College system proposed here, Bush would still have won 225 to 211.

Recommendations: Free Press is voting for Michigan's U.S. House, Senate and House of Representatives in the Nov. 5 election

Popular vs. population

A 2023 Pew Research Center survey of 8,480 adults found that nearly two-thirds of respondents thought the Electoral College system should be replaced by the national popular vote, a level of dissatisfaction with the current process that is so high as never before since at least 2000, when the different results of the Electoral College and the popular vote were a major topic of discussion.

Although many are convinced that switching to the national popular vote would create significant potential problems related to voter turnout.

For example, even with expanded absentee voting and early voting options, a significant number of Michigan residents still voted on Election Day. A snowstorm in Michigan's Upper Peninsula or even a heavy rainstorm in Detroit would depress voter turnout and cause the state to be underrepresented in statewide election results. Conversely, a hotly contested referendum question in Florida or a gubernatorial race in New Hampshire would tend to increase voter turnout and result in the state being overrepresented in the statewide popular vote.

To be fair, states should be represented proportionally to their population – and probably not just to their voter turnout. After all, those who cannot vote because of their youth, frailty or even institutionalization have a stake in the outcome. The people and not the referendum should decide.

In summary, adjusting Electoral College votes based on the state's population and allocating votes to each state proportionally to the voting results is the best way to ensure a fair voting process. Instead of abolishing the Electoral College, I say we simply change its “curriculum.”

James Alan Fox is a research professor of criminology, law and public policy at Northeastern University. Submit a letter to the editor at freep.com/letters and we can publish it online and in print.

A complicated mechanism, a flawed approach

Popular vs. population

Leave a Reply Cancel reply