Constitutional design for selecting the chief executive Historical evolution since 1789 The Electoral College How it works today Implications and criticism Alternatives Reapportionment and post-2020 projections

1. The evolution of the
presidential selection system in the
United States (1789-2016): The Electoral
College challenged (again)
February 19, 2019
Policy Process and Political Institutions
Keiko Ono, Ph.D.
SSRI
National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies
Temple University Japan
1

2. Outline
• About the speaker
• Constitutional design for selecting the chief
executive
• Historical evolution since 1789
• The Electoral College
– How it works today
– Implications and criticism
– Alternatives
• Reapportionment and post-2020 projections
2

3. Learning Objectives
➢ The motivation behind the original design
➢ How the Electoral College works today
➢ Why it is controversial
➢ How Donald Trump won in 2016
➢ Prospects for 2020, 2024
3

4. Objective of the U.S. Constitution
• Establish “energetic” government
• Prevent tyranny (abuse of power)
• Design a system in which popular influence can
help secure liberty but not dictate public policy
(republican principle)
4

5. Constitutional history
• The Mayflower Compact (1620)
• State constitutions
• Declaration of Independence (1776)
• The Articles of Confederation (1777)
• The Constitutional Convention (1787)
5

6. Controversies that are relevant to
presidential selection
• Separation of powers
• Federalism
• Representation in Congress: based on
population or equal number
• Count slaves as people?
• Sovereignty: states or people at large
6

7. Rejected………
• Hereditary monarchy (e.g. King George)
• Popular direct election
Ultimately people can self-govern..but indirectly.
Faith in the public, but at the same time doubt about
citizens’ ability to reason and make judgment
7

8. Also rejected…
• Legislative selection
Threatens institutional independence of the
presidency (separation of powers)
8

9. What influenced the delegates at the
Constitutional Convention
• Nature of civil society
• View of leadership: disdain for “popular arts”
• View of citizens: “distant onlooker”
• Political parties yet to be formed
• Practical considerations: lack of speedy
transportation, communication
9

10. The Electoral College: another ingenious
constitutional compromise (Article II 3.)
• Electors will choose president
• States will decide how electors are selected
• Electors exercise independent judgment
• Popular sentiment will be reflected
• # of electors: 2 + # of House seats
• Two votes per elector
• President and VP not specified
• If no majority, House decides
• Each state delegation in the House has one vote
10

11. The Electoral College: another ingenious
constitutional compromise (Article II 3.)
• Electors will choose president
• States will decide how electors are selected
– Popular election OR state legislature. By early 19th C,
most states had popular election.
• Electors exercise independent judgment
• Popular sentiment will be reflected
• # of electors: 2 + # of House seats
• Two votes per elector
• President and VP not specified
• If no majority, House decides
• Each state delegation in the House has one vote11

12. The Electoral College reformed
(12th Amendment, ratified 1804)
• Separate ballots for Prez and V.P. (elector has
one vote for Prez, one for VP)
• If no majority for prez, House will vote among
three top vote getters
• Each state has one vote
• If no majority for VP, Senate will vote among two
top vote getters
• Inauguration set on January 20th (20th
Amendment. 1933)
12

13. How the Electoral College Works Today
• Popular vote in each state selects electors
(practice in place in most states by early 19th C)
• # of electors = 2 + # of House seats (unchanged)
• Total # of electoral votes: 538 (unchanged since 1964)
• Electors (expected to) vote for their party’s
candidate
• President and V.P. form a “ticket”
• All but two states (Maine and Nebraska) use
“winner-take-all”
13

14. 14

15. Political implications of the Electoral College
• Magnifies the margin of the popular vote
winner (e.g. Obama winning 51% of PV, 62% of EV in 2012)
• Campaigns focus on large and competitive
states
• Small and/or noncompetitive states get
ignored
• Popular vote winner could fail to win the
presidency (1876, 1888, 2000, 2016)
15

16. The problems associated with the Electoral College
• How electoral votes are distributed
among states: Disproportionality in
representation
• How electoral votes are allocated among
candidates in a given state
16

17. Geography and population compared
18
Map created using QGIS 3.4.1.

18. Inequality in representation
Illustration using “cartogram”
19
Newman, M. 2017. Maps of the 2016 US presidential
election results

19. Population cartogram, “a map in which the sizes of states are
rescaled according to their population”
Illustration using “cartogram”
20
Newman, M. 2017. Maps of the 2016 US presidential
election results

20. Based on electoral votes
21
Newman, M. 2017. Maps of the 2016 US presidential
election results

21. 1) Disproportionality (inequality) in
representation
• Electoral votes = 2 + # of House seats
• Favors small states
• Most residents per electoral vote: Texas 755K
• Fewest residents per electoral vote: Wyoming
192K
22

22. Inequality in representation
Number of residents per electoral vote
compared
23

23. 2) Allocation of Electoral Votes
• All but two states use winner-take-all
• Maine and Nebraska: 2 at-large votes +
votes going to winner in each C.D. Results
same as winner-take-all until 2008. Intra-
state homogeneity
• Strategic implications: candidates focus on
large and competitive states
• Votes are “wasted”: e.g. Republican voters
in California, Democratic voters in Texas
24

24. How Trump won in
2016
25
How Trump won in 2016

25. Alternatives to the Electoral College
1. Popular direct election
2. Congressional district method
(Maine/Nebraska method)
3. National popular vote plan
26

26. Alternatives to the Electoral College
2. Maine/Nebraska method
• Two at-large votes go to statewide winner
• One vote goes to the winner in each
Congressional district
• Outcome depends on intra-state
homogeneity
27

27. 2. Maine/Nebraska method
Low intra-state heterogeneity
Kerry Bush
Maine statewide 55% 45% 2 votes for Kerry
District 1 55% 43% 1 vote for Kerry
District 2 52% 46% 1 vote for Kerry
Total Kerry 4, Bush 0
Nebraska statewide 33% 67% 2 votes for Bush
District 1 36% 63% 1 vote for Bush
District 2 38% 60% 1 vote for Bush
District 3 24% 75% 1 vote for Bush
Total Bush 5, Kerry 0
28
2004 results. Neither state split their electoral votes
until 2008.

28. 2. Maine/Nebraska method
What if more heterogeneous state (e.g. IL, VA,
NY) adopt this method?
• Promotes competitiveness
• Less “wasted” votes
29

29. Source: Chicago Tribune
More heterogenous
state: Illinois

30. Illinois 2016 results
Democrat: 20 electoral votes, Republican: 0
If Congressional District method were used,
Democrat: 13 votes, Republican 7.
31
Map created using QGIS
3.4.1.

31. 3. National popular vote plan
Inter-state Compact
• National Popular Vote Inc.
• Dr. John Koza (mathematician)
• Electors in state will vote for national popular vote
winner
• Law passed in 12 states with 172 electoral votes
• Will take effect only when enough states (majority
of electoral votes) approve the measure
• Strategic implications?
32

32. 33

33. Where the votes are……….
Professor Mark Newman, Department of Physics, University of Michigan
34

34. Alternatives to the Electoral College
Recap
1. Popular direct election
Would ensure popular vote winner is elected
president. BUT… Requires Constitutional
amendment. Not workable?
2. Congressional district method
(Maine/Nebraska method)
Popular vote winner is likely to be elected.
3. National popular vote plan
Would ensure popular vote winner is elected.
35

35. Looking into the future:
2020 Census and Reapportionment
• 2020 presidential election
• 2024 presidential election (post 2020
census and reapportionment)
36

36. The Constitution and reapportionment
“Representatives and direct taxes shall
be apportioned among the several
states which may be included within
this union, according to their
respective numbers….”
37

37. 38Source: POLIDATA

38. 39
Source: University of California at Santa Barbara
SIMULATION
If GOP candidate wins
the exact same set of
states as Trump, s/he
will win 307 electoral
votes (306 in 2016)

39. References
• Chicago Tribune.2016.11.9.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/data/ct-illinois-
president-results-20161108-htmlstory.html
• Edwards, G. 2004. Why the Electoral College is Bad for
America.
• Newman, M. 2016. Maps of the 2016 presidential election
results. http://www-
personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2016/
• Wayne, G. 2008. The Road to the White House 2008.
• National Popular Vote Inc.
https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/
• POLIDATA. http://www.polidata.org/
• The Presidency Project. University of California at Santa
Barbara.
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/elections/1832
40

40. References
• https://www.cbsnews.com/news/which-candidates-did-
the-seven-faithless-electors-support-election-2016/
• Edwards, G. 2004. Why the Electoral College is Bad for
America.
• Wayne, G. 2008. The Road to the White House 2008.
• National Popular Vote Inc.
https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/
• The Presidency Project. University of California at Santa
Barbara.
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/elections/183
2
• Chicago Tribune.2016.11.9.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/data/ct-illinois-
president-results-20161108-htmlstory.html
42