« Common ID mandate | Main | Best tech rumor ever »
Balanced ticket
Everyone knows that “one person, one vote” is both the bedrock principle of democracy and totally inapplicable to US presidential elections. That’s common knowledge, but I was curious about just how uneven the process is, so I did a bit of Electoral College arithmetic to figure out the difference in “voting power” between voters in different states. (For my international readers, here is the official FEC explanation of how US presidential elections really work - and I’m glad to see that not too many tax dollars are being spent on web design there.)
To find the “voting power” of each voter by state, I divided the total number of eligible voters in each state by the number of that state’s electoral votes. By this (admittedly flawed – see the disclaimer) math, the Bush/Cheney ticket represents both sides of the electoral power spectrum. Somehow, I don’t think we’ll see any bragging.
The most “powerful” voters are in Vice President Cheney’s home state of Wyoming (123,473 eligible voters per electoral vote). President Bush’s state of Texas has the third “weakest” voters (467,091 eligible voters per electoral vote). The only two states with weaker ratios are more-populous California (469,040:1) and more-geriatric Florida (486,619:1).
This means that George Bush would have to vote 3.78 times to get the same electoral effect as one vote cast by Dick Cheney. This just might be possible with them newfangled closed-source, paperless e-voting machines.
By contrast, John Edwards’ vote is only worth 1.03 Kerry votes. Here’s a quick spreadsheet I made of all the states: (HTML or .xls, .csv) All data is from the US Census Bureau.
I’m not sure how to feel about all this. On the one hand, the Electoral College bias in favor of small states seems statistically unfair. On the other hand, it encourages particularly politicaly active people to move to less populated areas – and away from me.
This brings us to our next Vastly Important Poll:
[Disclaimer: This analysis is flawed for at least three reasons.
1. Population data is from the latest July 2003 estimate, but demographic data for 18+ percentages is from the 2000 census. This is probably a very small error.
2. Immigration data is not included. Non-naturalized immigrants (legal and illegal) count towards the population total but are not eligible to vote and will therefore skew the given ratios. This is probably a small error.
3. The “winner takes all” nature of most state electoral delegations is probably a bigger contributing factor to voter influence than the ratios presented here.]
September 1, 2004 | Permalink
Comments
You're asking the wrong question. The Electoral college was designed (like the bi cameral legistlature) to keep small states interests from being overwelmed by large state interests.
The question instead is: Do we want to get rid of the idea that states are autonomous units?
If we do that what incentive to national politicians have to care at all about Wyoming? Presidential candidates would focus on highly populated areas (Generally along the coasts) at the exclusion of less densly populated areas.
Removing the Electoral college is a radical change in the basis of our government. A Union of States becomes a collective whole.
It's an important distinction and needs to be addressed when you're talking about removing the Electoral College.
Posted by: josh | Sep 1, 2004 1:09:12 PM
If we abolished the electoral system, the US would become like Australia where 95 percent of the Aussies live along two coastlines (SW & E).
http://www.angelfire.com/moon/yoelnatan/koranwarpassages.htm
Posted by: Mark James | Sep 1, 2004 4:51:14 PM
Very good post
Some other questions to me:
Why does every state regardless of population get 2 senators?
Why are the elected politicians allowed to gerrymander their districts? This should be done through an independent statistical population density mapping method to avoid gaming.
Why aren't senators and house of reps subject to term limits?
http://www.termlimits.org/
http://www.termlimits.org/Research/articles/020425theeconomist.html
Posted by: Jason Koulouras | Sep 1, 2004 9:41:29 PM
These are some good comments with some good issues.
As for small states getting ignored in a presidential debate without the Electoral College, why would that be a bad thing? The Electoral College exists only to elect the Executive Branch, which has the purpose of serving the majority. That’s how a democracy works (the US is actually a republic, not a pure democracy, but that’s another issue). If the majority of the population lives along the coasts, then it just makes sense to cater to their needs.
As the system exists today the national debate has focused much more on issues that affect only small segment of the population. How many people are really affected by Yucca Mountain? Yet, both candidates have spent time discussing the issue since Nevada is a swing state and it’s a key issue there.
Just because we change the Electoral College doesn’t mean these states will be entirely ignored. That’s why there are two senators (from the Great Compromise) and representatives based on population. This, of course, brings up the issue of term limits. In a large and economically powerful state like California or New York, it doesn’t matter who is in office, the state’s needs will be met. But in a smaller state like Massachusetts, the political capital built up over time makes up for the smaller size.
Before I came to Massachusetts I couldn’t figure out why anyone would elect Ted Kennedy repeatedly. But after living here for a while I realized that he serves our needs, he fights to bring jobs and contracts to the state. That’s what a senator is supposed to do. Whether you agree with his politics is not the issue, but he serves the people and has the political capital to do so.
Congressman Marty Meehan’s original campaign was based on limiting his own term, which he hasn’t done. A cynic would say that he just became drunk with power, but he has said that when he got to Washington he realized that the system didn’t work unless you were trusted, and you can only become trusted over time.
Creating gerrymandered districts is another issue altogether. I believe this is just a salve. Some districts are changed for political purposes (like in Texas) but others to create some racial balance in Congress. The real problem is that people just don’t get out and vote. With the low voter turnout rate that most local elections get, a vocal minority can have a major impact on an election. If community groups focused on galvanizing people rather than changing districts, they’d have a good chance of influencing national policy.
Posted by: Chuck | Sep 2, 2004 9:51:05 AM
We have all have two senators because we have a Senate that is designed to tackle issues that affect states equally, regardless of population. This, for example, gives Wyoming an equal say in voting on a trade treaty that would favor, say, California, Florida, and New York but not smaller states. (Whether it works is a different matter entirely.) If we still had the system where state governments elected/appointed Senators, this would be more clear. (Direct election resulted from an amendment, not the original Constitution.)
The whole idea in the beginning was that the federal government would focus only on national interests, such as national defense, international treaties, interstate commerce, and conflict between the states. States would govern handling of crime, property taxes, and other issues better suited to a more local government. (Meditate for a while on the 9th and 10th amendments.) Those lines of distinction have been blurred to the point of unrecognizability, and thus the confusion over the mechanics of American government.
Posted by: John Johnson | Sep 13, 2004 9:48:13 AM
Chuck, these days, "racial balance" means more Democrats. In other words, it's still gerrymandering for a "political purpose," is it not?
Posted by: Semaj | Sep 15, 2004 2:40:57 AM
I find the criticism of the Electoral College system as extraordinarily short sighted! Having lived out in those "square states" as well as in California and Massachusetts, I can say that it is obvious that Presidential candidates would happily ignore the vaste center of the country if they could find a way.
Just think about the likelihood that they could spend all of their political capital as well as any real money to simply buy the votes in New York, New Jersey. Pennsylvania, Florida, Texas, California, Oregon, and Washington.
Do you really think that the middle of the country would feel part of the country?
Do think that the "plains people" would just sit by and ignore this?
Do you really believe that home of the majority of our armed force personnel would continue to support the government?
Do you really think that this would be an alternative for getting high quality presidential candidates who visit all parts of the country and learn about the problems and the needs of the people?
I don't think you have really thought about it!!!
Posted by: | Sep 19, 2004 3:28:45 PM
