Fairness of the Electoral College

The Electoral College presents us with some rather fascinating presidential election results especially as one looks at those results in comparison with popular votes and winners and losers.  Our 2016 election has many asking the validity of the Electoral College.  There is likely to be angst when a candidate loses by a narrow margin, but when one wins the popular vote but loses the Electoral College anger, though fueled by misunderstanding, is probably justified.

The 2016 presidential election results are not without precedence.  Twice in history we have seen the popular vote-getter lose the Electoral College.  In 1876 Rutherford B. Hayes (R) won only 48.47% of the popular vote but won the Electoral College by attaining 50.1%, and thus the presidency (4,034,311 popular votes to Samuel J. Tilden’s [D] 4,288,546 popular votes).  Then of course most of us remember the 2000 General Election when George W. Bush (R) attained only 49.74% of the popular vote but won the presidency with 50.47% in the Electoral College (50,455,156 popular votes to Albert Gore, Jr. [D] 50,992,335 popular votes).  Incidentally, one could reasonably ponder upon the effect of third-party candidates on popular votes in individual states and the resultant impact they have on the electoral vote.

 

Table 1

Presidential Elections where Electoral College Votes were Greater than Popular Vote

 

Year	President	Percent Popular Vote	Percent Electoral College
1876	Rutherford B. Hayes	48.47%	50.1%
2000	George W. Bush	49.74%	50.47%
2016	Donald J. Trump	48.97%	56.88%

It is worth noting here that there was one time in our history that a presidential election was not determined by popular vote or by the Electoral College.  In 1824 neither John Quincy Adams nor Andrew Jackson received a majority of the Electoral College votes to win the presidency.  One-hundred, thirty-one (131) Electoral College votes were required to win.  John Quincy Adams had received 84 Electoral College votes and Andrew Jackson received 99 of the 131 votes needed.  Adams also receive 113,122 popular votes and Andrew Jackson received 151, 271 popular votes.  There were a sufficient number of Electoral College votes that went to William Harris Crawford (41) and Henry Clay (37) to prevent either Adams or Jackson to claim victory.  Therefore, the Twelfth Amendment came into play and the election was handed over to the House of Representatives, which selected Adams as the President of the United States.

Andrew Jackson (D) was not to be denied the Presidency.  His turn would come in 1828 and again in 1832.  It is the 1832 election that will serve as our first example of how a lopsided victory can be attained by means of the Electoral College.  See Table 2.  In this election, Jackson won 59% of the popular vote defeating Henry Clay (N-R) in the Electoral College with nearly 82% of the electoral votes.  In 1844 James K. Polk (D) won 50.12% of the popular vote and 61.82% of the electoral vote, defeating his opponent Henry Clay (W).  Then there was the election of 1864 wherein Abraham Lincoln won only 55% of the popular vote but won nearly 91% of the electoral votes.

In 1892 Grover Cleveland (D) won 50.13% of the popular vote, defeating Benjamin Harrison (R) with 65% of the electoral votes.  Franklin Roosevelt (D) won 59% of the popular vote in 1932 but won 89% of the electoral votes, defeating Herbert Hoover (R).  Roosevelt followed that victory in 1936 by winning 27,757,333 votes (nearly 62% of the popular votes) over Alfred M. Landon (R) who received 16,684,231 and took just 8 electoral votes.  Franklin did it again in 1940 by taking almost 54% of the popular vote, but defeating Thomas Dewey (R) by taking over 81% of the electoral votes.

Lyndon Johnson (D) in 1964 pulled in 61% of the popular vote over Barry Goldwater (R) but took in a whopping 90% of the Electoral College.  And of course we have Barack Obama (D), who in 2012 only took in 52% of the popular vote but won the election over Mitt Romney (R) by taking in nearly 62% of the electoral votes.

 

Table 2

Sample of Percentage of Popular Votes vs. Percentage of Electoral College Votes

 

Year	President	Percent of Population	Percent of Electoral Vote	Opponent
1828	Andrew Jackson (D)	56.19	68.20	John Quincy Adams
1844	James K. Polk (D)	50.12	61.82	Henry Clay
1864	Abraham Lincoln (R)	55.03	90.99	George B. McClellan
1892	Grover Cleveland (D)	51.74	65.64	Benjamin Harrison
1932	Franklin Roosevelt (D)	59.16	88.89	Herbert C. Hoover
1936	Franklin Roosevelt (D)	62.46	98.49	Alfred M. Landon
1940	Franklin Roosevelt (D)	55.00	84.56	Wendell L. Wilkie
1964	Lyndon B. Johnson (D)	61.34	91.33	Barry M. Goldwater
2012	Barack H. Obama (D)	51.96	61.71	Mitt Romney

 

Over the last 49 presidential elections since the 1824 presidential election between John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson, 54.81% of the popular vote went to the winner while 71.62% of the Electoral College votes went to the winning candidate.  (Popular vote data were not available prior to the 1824 presidential election.)

Perhaps it is the thinking that the electoral votes should be in proportion to the popular votes that disturbs everyone.  By the way, the examples given here are merely examples of many of the elections we have endured through our history.  While there are a few elections that appear somewhat proportional between the popular vote and the electoral vote on the surface, not a single one is, and most are wildly out of proportion.  Anyway, it may be the thinking that electoral votes should be in proportion to the popular vote that is unsettling with many.  Essentially, what proponents of a proportionate relationship are saying is that the majority should rule.  Depending upon who you listen to, the Founding Fathers were wise in setting up the Electoral College in guaranteeing that a majority not trample on the minority (consider Tocqueville’s thoughts on majority rule and minority rights). 

Another way to look at it is that ten states have more than 50% of the total U.S. population.  If we had a majority rule, these ten states could be the tail that wags the dog.  They could decide the fate of the other 40 states again and again.  Where, one might ask – or should ask, the fairness is in this arrangement.  But, it doesn’t happen because these ten states have a total of 236 electoral votes in a system that currently requires 270 electoral votes of the 538 votes available to win.

 

Table 3

Ten Most Populous States and their Electoral College Votes

 

	State	Population	Electoral Votes
1	California	37,253,956	53
2	Texas	25,145,561	36
3	New York	19,378,102	27
4	Florida	18,801,310	27
5	Illinois	12,830,632	18
6	Pennsylvania	12,702,379	18
7	Ohio	11,536,504	16
8	Georgia	9,687,653	14
9	Michigan	9,883,640	14
10	North Carolina	9,535,483	13
Total		166,755,220	236
Total US		308,745,538	538
10 State % of US Population and Electoral College		54.01%	43.87%

Note that these 10 states make up 20% of the total number of states in the Union.  Making up 54% of the total U.S. population creates a scenario where these states could always determine the outcome of a presidential election, leaving the other 80% of the states without a voice and thus negating the doctrine of states rights.  By using the Electoral College a presidential candidate must garner electoral votes from other less populous states in order to win.  Likewise, it makes it nearly impossible to win the presidency by not capturing at least some of these ten states.

The Electoral College is not the only example in government that we have relative to majority rule vs. minority rights.  In order to avoid the “tyranny of the majority”, a three-fifth vote is required to end a senate filibuster.  Such a supermajority gives ear to the minority.  Of course this does not absolutely guarantee the right for the minority to be heard, but it requires 60% of that body to bring an end to a filibuster.  The other thing that recognizing minority rights is that it encourages parties to work together.  One never knows as a majority member when you will end up in the minority.  Keep in mind Madison’s observation that in a pure democracy decisions are not always decided by “the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.”  Everyone has heard the history lesson given by John Adams that democracies self-implode.

Remember that we have two houses of congress.  The President can veto legislation passed by both the House and the Senate, but two-thirds of those bodies can override that veto.  Minority rights are further protected (to some extent) in the way we amend the Constitution.  The Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of both Houses and three-fourths of the state legislatures to amend the Constitution.  While not perfect, at least some protection is guaranteed the minority population by requiring such an overwhelming majority to amend the Constitution.  Otherwise, 50.1% could always rule the roost.  I am not a proponent of abortion rights; however, consider this as a safety valve in the way we function as a nation when it comes to such issues as a woman’s right to have an abortion.

Perhaps the ultimate protection of minority rights is the Bill of Rights.  While we tend to ask questions such as why the police don’t just run in and do their job or how in the world a judge could dismiss charges against a person on a technicality when a person is clearly guilty, people tend to appreciate those minority protections when they are faced with the police at their door.

The Founding Fathers were painfully aware that a pure democracy would lead to the same oppression that we had fought to get out from under.  This should be evident not only by the creation of the Electoral College, but also the inclusion of the Bill of Rights into our Constitution, how amendments are added to that document, and how bills may become (or not become) laws.  It just might be wise to sit back and take a look at the big picture before any serious move is made to do away with the Electoral College.