Regardless of the original intent, the electoral college today overwhelmingly favors the large states. Most states have a "winner take all" system for selecting electors. All the state's votes go to whomever gets the plurality of votes in the state. Plurality means more than anyone else, even if it's not a majority of the vote cast. That means that states with large electoral college blocks get all the attention. In this last election, Bill Clinton won Florida's 25 electors and Ohio's 21 even though he had less than half the vote in either state. Likewise, Bob Dole won Texas' 32 electors with less than a majority of the popular vote.
The "winner take all" rule is a matter of state law. It is not required by the U.S. constitution. In fact, Maine and Nebraska have changed to a proportional system for allocating their electoral college votes.
If
Small States Changed to Proportionate Electoral College Voting
Small
States and 3d Parties Could be in the Drivers Seat
|
|
Winner |
|
|
|
|
| Alabama | 9 | R | 9 | 0 | 0 |
| Alaska | 3 | Split | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| Arizona | 8 | Split | 4 | 3 | 1 |
| Arkansas | 6 | R | 6 | 0 | 0 |
| California | 54 | D | 0 | 54 | 0 |
| Colorado | 8 | R | 8 | 0 | 0 |
| Connecticut | 8 | D | 0 | 8 | 0 |
| Delaware | 3 | D | 0 | 3 | 0 |
| DC | 3 | D | 0 | 3 | 0 |
| Florida | 25 | R | 25 | 0 | 0 |
| Georgia | 13 | R | 13 | 0 | 0 |
| Hawaii | 4 | D | 0 | 4 | 0 |
| Idaho | 4 | Split | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| Illinois | 22 | D | 0 | 22 | 0 |
| Indiana | 12 | R | 12 | 0 | 0 |
| Iowa | 7 | R | 7 | 0 | 0 |
| Kansas | 6 | R | 6 | 0 | 0 |
| Kentucky | 8 | D | 0 | 8 | 0 |
| Louisiana | 9 | D | 0 | 9 | 0 |
| Maine | 4 | Split | 1 | 2 | 1 |
| Maryland | 10 | D | 0 | 10 | 0 |
| Massachusetts | 12 | D | 0 | 12 | 0 |
| Michigan | 18 | D | 0 | 18 | 0 |
| Minnesota | 10 | Split | 3 | 5 | 2 |
| Mississippi | 7 | R | 7 | 0 | 0 |
| Missouri | 11 | D | 11 | 0 | 0 |
| Montana | 3 | Split | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| Nebraska | 5 | Split | 2 | 2 | 1 |
| Nevada | 4 | Split | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| New Hampshire | 4 | Split | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| New Jersey | 15 | D | 0 | 15 | 0 |
| New Mexico | 5 | D | 0 | 5 | 0 |
| New York | 33 | D | 0 | 33 | 0 |
| North Carolina | 14 | R | 14 | 0 | 0 |
| North Dakota | 3 | Split | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| Ohio | 21 | R | 21 | 0 | 0 |
| Okahoma | 8 | R | 8 | 0 | 0 |
| Oregon | 7 | Split | 2 | 4 | 1 |
| Pennsylvania | 23 | R | 23 | 0 | 0 |
| Rhode Island | 4 | D | 0 | 4 | 0 |
| South Carolina | 8 | R | 8 | 0 | 0 |
| SouthDakota | 3 | Split | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| Tennessee | 11 | R | 11 | 0 | 0 |
| Texas | 32 | R | 32 | 0 | 0 |
| Utah | 5 | R | 5 | 0 | 0 |
| Vermont | 3 | Split | 1 | 2 | 0 |
| Virginia | 13 | R | 13 | 0 | 0 |
| Washington | 11 | D | 11 | 0 | 0 |
| West Virginia | 5 | Split | 2 | 2 | 1 |
| Wisconsin | 11 | Split | 4 | 5 | 2 |
| Wyoming | 3 | Split | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| Total | 538 | 263 | 263 | 12 |
In this scenario, 15 states adopt proportional allocation of electoral college votes. Most are small states, but I have also included the reform-oriented states of Arizona, Minnesota, Oregon and Wisconsin as going to a proportional system.
In such a scenario, it is very easy to imagine an election where the balance of power is held by the 3d party. There are two reasons for this. The first is the obvious one: under a proportionate system, the third party gets electoral votes even with a relatively small percentage of the total vote.
(The recent U.S. experience suggests that campaign based on media alone can easily garner 20-25% of the vote. If small states made the shift to proportionate voting, a media campaign would be not only plausible, it would be inexpensive, due to the small size of the media markets involved.)
The second, more subtle, effect is that the proportionate states deprive their state's usual winner of a certain number of "safe" votes. Thus it is more likely that the national electoral vote will be close.
In the scenario, the 3d party gets between 20 and 25% of the vote. That means that the 3d party still doesn't get any electoral college votes in the smallest states with only 3 electors (Alaska, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, Wyoming). It doesn't matter. The proportionate system takes away 6 "safe" Republican votes, even in these small states.
Under this scenario, it is very plausible to end up with an electoral vote nearly tied, and the third party holds the key. My scenario ends up with 263 Republican votes, 263 Democratic votes and 12 third party votes. Past U.S. history strongly suggests that in such a situation, there is going to be a deal struck. Talk about disproportionate influence!
Posted 25 November 1996
© AvaGara 1996
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-commercial use and mention
of this review is permitted, but please credit Avagara Productions and
include our address:
http://www.avagara.com