In the US, it is a Presidential election year. Which means we will see lots of TV ads and general non-sense in the news until November. In the graph , you can see that political TV spend is about $2 billion a year (even during the 2010 mid-term Congressional elections). US elections are exhausting.
Don’t get me wrong. The US is a robust democracy with a craftily designed system of government checks and balances. The 4,600 word US Constitution has worked well over the last 200 years, but let’s also admit there are structural problems with US politics too.
Big problem #1: The “winner-takes-all” electoral system: As background for the non-Americans, the US has an indirect Presidential election system where each state has a number of electoral votes. As you can see in the map below, Texas has 38 votes and Florida has 29. The less populated states (e.g., DE or WY) have 3 electoral votes because the framers of the Constitution wanted even small states to have more political sway. Another good explanation with an Economist video here.
What I am not okay with is the silly winner-takes-all system that most states use. (Maine & Nebraska are exceptions). Basically, whichever candidate wins the majority of the popular vote, gets all the electoral college votes. It is like binary outcome: 1 or 0. So, there is a huge payday if you win 51%+ of the vote, and no benefit if you don’t.
Sadly, for half of Americans, your vote is a waste of time: The winner-takes-all system skews the results and also makes the voting minority of each state under-represented. Look at a sample of the electoral votes in 2008 by states. All or nothing.
If you are Democrat in Alabama (a largely Republican state) you are out of luck. Same goes for the other side – if you a Republican in California (a largely Democratic state) you lose. Essentially your vote is a waste of time because the minority vote is wiped out.
As you can see in this table, McCain received all 9 electoral votes from Alabama in 2008. As you might imagine, that is not because he got 100% of the vote. No, he only got 61%. 813K people voted for Obama.
Only the swing states get attention: As a result, candidates don’t pay attention to states where they expect to either win or lose by a large margin. Without some reform, Presidential candidates will only care about swing state voters and their interests. Also, third-party candidates have zero chance of winning a Presidential election. See an informative, but seriously swing state-focused analysis of the election here.
It has turned into an electoral vote counting game: Candidates win campaigns by tweaking their message to pander to specific groups in the swing states instead of taking leadership positions that appeal to the large body of Americans who are really centrist. Unfortunately, it has become a game of fine-tuning cynical political ads and messaging to independent voters. There are even electoral college models here for scenario analysis.
President McCain, President Kerry and President Gore? In this fascinating website, Mike Sheppard shows how a small number of votes (about 1%) could have changed the Presidential outcomes in previous elections:
Probably time for a change: It is no surprise that there than been ~ 700 proposals to Congress to reform or abolish the electoral college. The American Bar Association calls the electoral college system “archaic” and “ambiguous”. In a Gallup poll in 2011, 62% of Americans said they would favor a Constitutional amendment to move to a popular vote system.
Interestingly, college students have a choice: College students are allowed to vote in their home states (where their parents live), or in the state of their university. So students should register and vote in the state where they get more voting “bang for the buck”. The www.countmore.org website makes that easy to decide.
Source: Creative commons links
Link which shows the increasing partisan nature of politics here. The blues and the reds were more co-mingled in the past with loose affiliations. Now they are separate and distinct. We intuitively feel this, but great visualization 1949 – 2011.
Related posts:
I agree that the winner take all system has corrupted the American system of government for all the reasons you state above, however a popular vote would have a negative effect on state’s right’s leaving the people to contend with an anonymous federal government to account for local issues. Our founder were also cognizant of the importance of maintaining state sovereignty. A more reasonable change would to have more states split the electoral college such as Maine and Nebraska.
How would moving to a popular vote system effect states rights?
Hello, my name is David and I am a student at Cal Poly,
I really enjoy your perspective on the current voting system of a win by majority and would love to quote you in a paper I am writing.
Do it.
the only answer that is fair would be by Congressional district with the 2 Senate votes going to the State winner of most districts
Please explain further what you mean. Not sure I follow. Please expound.
I think Peter is suggesting every State follow the Maine and Nebraska models. If you win the majority in a Congressional district you win that electoral vote. Winning the popular vote of the entire State gets you the additional 2 Senate votes. The electoral number assigned to States being equal to the number of Congressional Districts plus 2 for the Senators. Based on this premise, it appears Mitt Romney might have won the 2012 election with 272 electoral votes. I’ve got the FL 7th district a tie so didn’t award a vote. So it could be 271 or 273. I suspect Gerrymandering of districts would have to be addressed to make the system plausible nationally.
Wonderful, thank you for adding on the analysis. Makes sense. Nice assist.