Skip to main content

In 2000 Al Gore won the popular vote by about one half of one percent, while George W Bush won the electoral college by 5 votes.  The votes, in effect, were awarded by the SCOTUS.  There were four states in which Gore won by less than 1% of the popular vote.  There was no state where Bush won by less by a percent, assuming that we consider Florida a tie.

Nevertheless some think that a popular vote would have someone automatically awarded Gore the election.  Some conservatives are even on the bandwagon thinking that they can manipulate the popular vote in a way that they cannot manipulate the electoral college due to the current composition of many states.

I disagree. A popular vote would not help the process in general, and would kept the SCOTUS from deciding the 2000 election.  There is a key change we could make in the electoral college that would bring it closer to an electoral vote, but such a change will likely not happen because almost half the states benefit.  Reasoning is below the fold.

In the case of the 200 election the two candidates were separated by a little more than 543,000 votes.  According to the US Census there were 111 million votes out of the 130 million registered voters in the 2000 election.  That meant that Gore had a popular advantage of just under half a percent in the votes.

According to the National Council of State Legislatures, of the states(and DC) that have automatic recount thresholds in 2010, the most common threshold is 0.5%.  It would be reasonable to believe that this would be the threshold for a US popular vote.  While liberals might argue that Gore achieved this half a percent threshold, one can assume that the conservatives would petition the court for a decision, likely resulting in the SCOTUS deciding the election even in our fantasy scenario.

For the sake of argument what would change if we did have a popular election for president. Clearly in 2000 would might have still had a court case.  In 2004 there likely would have no difference.  

It is also said that popular vote will make every vote count.  Ok, let's take a look at the recent election In 2012. It could be argued that many votes were effectively minimized as the election was called soon after the last poll closed and while voters were still in line waiting to cast their ballot.  But let us look at the other side.  Florida was not finished counting votes until Wednesday.  While the votes may have counted enough for a popular vote win late in the voting day, that would still leave votes which were not applied to the win of one candidate or another.  Like, as reported today, California, Oregon, and Washington all have non trivial number of votes to count.  So unless we are also willing to move the outcome of the election several days, there are still going to be voters who 'votes do not count.'

Another argument for moving from the electoral college is so that we don't have 'swing states'.  I don't believe we really have swing states, just states where it is more economical to get voters for a particular party.  We would still have money flowing into those areas.  In fact a popular vote might make election more expensive, as I will talk about at a later time.

So, I don't think a popular vote is much better than the electoral college.  This change is elegant, simple, and politically impossibile.  It is simply removing the senate from the electoral college.  How much change would this adjustment make.  A lot.  As in bush would have lost the 2000 election.

In 2000 Bush received 271 electoral votes to  Gore's 266.  Bush won 30 states, Gore 20+DC.  If the two senate seat for each state were not counted, Bush would have 211 electoral votes, Gore 226.  In the new reality 219 electoral votes would be required to win.  Gore wins, Florida becomes irrelevant.

Clearly one issue with this policy change is that conservatives tend to win smaller states with fewer votes, so removing the senate seats would not be beneficial to them.  However this isn't a conservative versus liberal problem,  it is a sense of entitlement

Small state think they are entitled to power simply because they exist.  They do not have an economy, a quality of life, or any attractions to any significant numbers of residents.  However they feel entitled to have an unequal say in who gets to be president.  Twelve states have only four or fewer electoral votes. That means the two senate votes doubles their influence on the election of a president.  If we include those states with six electoral votes or fewer, they form a block that prevent any constitutional amendement that might seek to create a more popular vote. These are state like North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Alaska, many of who promote self sufficiency, deride government handouts, and say that immigration.  Well certainly when no one wants to live in your state, immigration is bad as all the talent is going elsewhere

But I digress.  If we do the math it turns out that any state with under 11 electoral vote gains an advantage, and any state with 11 or over is disadvantaged.  All said, about two thirds of the states are in the advantage column.  Although the advantage decreases as a state moves from 3 electoral votes to 10 electoral votes, there is no reason to assume that majority is going to relinquish power to the minority, both figuratively and in reality.

This inequity between large and small states, looking at the electoral votes over time, seem to be of increasing consequence.  If a severe republican is every elected, it wil be in no small part because the small states have an extra two votes. Since 1984, the last time that Republican elected a non-incumbent president in a landslide, it has been the Democrats who have been getting the electoral votes.  Even in reelection Bush only had a 35 electoral vote advantage, a count that would have allowed him to win by only 5 electoral votes if the senate votes were not counted.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Get rid of the EC (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    The issue is about fairness and the 14th amendment. The EC cannot comply with equal protection under the law. It is fundamentally at odds with equality of citizenship. Millions of GOP voters in California had nothing to say about the election of the POTUS. None of their votes mattered. A few thousand in Iowa or Wyoming do count. Millions that mean nothing, a few thousand that means a lot.

    Do facts matter anymore?

    by Sinan on Sat Nov 10, 2012 at 01:32:08 PM PST

  •  you're assuming the popular vote (0+ / 0-)

    would still be decided on a state by state basis.

    "Okay, until next time. Keep sending me your questions, and I will make fun of you... I mean, answer them." - Strong Bad

    by AaronInSanDiego on Sat Nov 10, 2012 at 03:45:19 PM PST

    •  no (0+ / 0-)

      States would be certifying votes, then sending them to Federal.  There should be no vote reporting to the press at the state level, only counts and which states have reported and % reported in state.The point is that networks will call the election before votes are in.  The status quo will likely continue, like calling the election 15 minutes after the California polls officially close, and voters are still lined up.  

  •  The biggest point of the EC is that is protects (0+ / 0-)

    members of the minority party (or parties) in every state.

    Want vote suppression with violence ??? Eliminate the EC.

    As to eliminating the 2 Senate votes ?

    You think the small states are going to ratify this amendment ?

    Really ?

  •  National Popular Vote legislation (0+ / 0-)

    has already been signed into law in states holding 132 Electoral Votes.  It is just about halfway to being the law of the land nationwide.

    The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the entire United States. The bill preserves the Electoral College, while ensuring that every vote in every state will matter in every presidential election.

    (And no, it generally wouldn't make it take longer for elections to be decided -- projections would be made based on votes cast and counted in various precincts, just as they are today.  It's only when the votes are much tighter that the results would take longer, and I argue that that is entirely appropriate.)

    •  And to clarify, (0+ / 0-)

      this solution does not depend on changing the constitution, or on the permission of the states who most benefit under the current system.  All we need is states possessing a combined total of 270 votes to allocate all their EVs to the winner of the national popular vote.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site