Structure, History, and Culture (6f)—Electoral College Politics

One year ago on Round and Square (10 November 2011)—Lectures: Scholarship (a)
Click here for the introduction to the Round and Square series "Structure, History, and Culture"

[a] Looming RF

This is one post in a multi-part series on the American Electoral College. Click below for the others.

Electoral 1       Electoral 2        Electoral 3        Vote!                 Clearing        Electoral 4        Electoral 5          
Electoral 6       Electoral 7        Electoral 8        Electoral 9        Electoral 10   Electoral 11      Electoral 12
Electoral 13     Electoral 14

We've covered most of the structural issues at work in the American electoral college. In a nutshell, it is a matter of putting together a combination of states that add up to 270 (out of 538). Result? You have won the presidency. That's the law of the land; that's the constitutional arrangement developed by the founding brethren. The structural force of it is so significant that almost all of the intellectual, financial, and organizational resources of both campaigns focus on getting to 270. 

It sounds pretty easy, doesn't it? 

[b] Core RF

Just remember that it will take about two years and, these days, many hundreds of millions of dollars to "arrange it." Getting to fifty, seventy-five, or even one-hundred is fairly easy. Another many millions of dollars and a little bit of work will get you to about 200 electoral votes. Both sides spend less than a third of their campaign funds and (let us not forget) campaign time getting to roughly 200-200. All of the rest depends on winning seventy of the remaining 138 electoral votes. The fact that I am giving an estimate does not change the core dynamics of the election, even acknowledging the fact that these electoral structures are historical, and have altered over time (Clinton and Carter did pretty well in the south, and Reagan and Johnson swept the whole country).

Through it all, a few thousand votes in Florida, Ohio, or Virginia can change everything.

We shall now return to the question of voting fairness. Is it really the best approach to elections to treat states as holders of three, seven, twelve, eighteen, thirty-eight, or fifty-five electoral votes? Is is reasonable to have a large state with twelve million popular votes, split almost down the middle, give all of its many electoral votes to one person (Joey)? Why, as we have asked in these posts, should two-thousand actual votes (narrowly taking California, let's say) result in winning fully one-fifth of the magical 270 electoral votes? 

This is insanity, many people would say.   

Let's go further. What about Suzy's 60,000 vote margin in North Dakota? She wins the state two-to-one, and comes out with a sizable lead in the two states' combined popular vote; she will receive only about one percent of the total she needs to win it all. Take a look at how the popular vote and electoral college compare in this hypothetical situation:

State                   Vote                                  Margin          Winner        Electoral Votes 
California             6,001,000-5,999,000         2,000              Joey                    55
North Dakota         180,000-120,000            60,000             Suzy                      3 

[c] Plurality RF

Remember, that this is hypothetical (President Obama actually won California by over two million votes). In this case, though, winning North Dakota gets Suzy not 60,000 votes and a clearance of 58,000 in these two states, but, rather, a stunning deficit of fifty-two electoral votes...out of 270. In other words, Joey lost by 58,000 votes, but is well on his way to victory. Joey wins; Suzy loses.

It's all about the structure...and many people feel that is just isn't fair.

It would require another whole set of posts to consider more deeply how we tend to "feel" that the popular vote is generally more legitimate than the electoral college. Think about it, though. If you were to analyze the neural synapses triggered by these questions and situations, you would realize that it takes enormous levels of dispassionate analysis and intellectualized reminders to say with conviction that the electoral college is "the game," and the popular vote really doesn't matter. Everyone running a campaign knows that this is the case, and winning is so much more appealing than losing that senses of legitimacy pale in comparison to winning electoral votes. Still, we just can't seem to shake the basic idea that the person who gets the most votes is the "legitimate" winner of an election.

Most votes = victory. 

What a concept. Could we do it differently? Is it possible to organize American elections differently? And let's get right to the point. Why don't we just go (right away) to a popular vote in American elections? The person who gets the most votes wins the election. Suzy won 21-9 in the fourth grade election...and she lost. Why shouldn't the rules (the structure) be simple, legitimate, and commonly agreed-upon? 

[d] Red + blue RF

Why shouldn't Suzy win, and quite convincingly at that?

This is what I have always asked, ever since I was in fourth grade myself. It is hard to imagine why this would be difficult....until you start to think about recent history. Let's just run a quick scenario. I shall call it "2000." To alter it a bit, what if the entire country's popular vote (this, too, is hypothetical) boiled down to a handful of votes? What if sea-to-shining-sea, Itasca to New Orleans, and every other stretch of this vast country counted up all of its votes and it was pretty darned close?

What if the entire country were so divided (does this sound familiar?) that almost all of the votes canceled out the others, and fewer than one vote per county (this would be about 3,000) separated the two candidates? Think about that. Three thousand votes might seem like a full percentage point in an Idaho gubernatorial race, but it is exceedingly tiny in the country as a whole. 

Recount!

Consider the implications. In 2000, there was enormous dispute about whether it was workable to recount Florida. Florida is a big state (and getting bigger every single day). Ultimately, the United States Supreme Court ruled (narrowly) that it was a task too large—a temporal bridge too far. They shut it down. The person in the lead won the state and, ultimately, the presidential election. If you remember, warm, fuzzy feelings about the "legitimacy" of the popular vote were cast aside for even the grave uncertainties of the electoral college. Al Gore won the national popular vote by a margin of more than half a million; George W. Bush led in Florida by 537 votes when the Supreme Court shut down the recount process. Recounting the whole state (or even several counties) was considered highly problematic.  

[e] Electoral crocus RF

On the surface (to an outside observer not familiar with the constitutional bylaws of the United States), the solution looks pretty simple, doesn't it? Governor Bush got thumped by Vice-President Gore. The real result? Governor Bush became President Bush; Vice-President Gore became a private citizen. 

What's up with that? Well, structure is up with it. A margin of Occamian proportion, with concomitant uncertainty to boot, decided the presidency, even though the popular vote was decisive. It all seems so very simple, doesn't it? Wouldn't it be better just to count all of the votes and declare the winner?

Whoa! Slow down, cowboy. That's a big change, with implications you might not have considered. This will take us a little more time.

We will continue this tomorrow.

This is one post in a multi-part series on the American Electoral College. Click below for the others.

Electoral 1       Electoral 2        Electoral 3        Vote!                 Clearing        Electoral 4        Electoral 5          
Electoral 6       Electoral 7        Electoral 8        Electoral 9        Electoral 10   Electoral 11      Electoral 12
Electoral 13     Electoral 14

[f] Count' em up RF