How unequal Representation and Swing State Politics undermine American Democracy
“The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy. “
“The Electoral College is actually genius in that it brings all states, including the smaller ones, into play! “
In the past 200 years more than 700 proposals have been introduced in Congress to reform or abolish the Electoral College – more than on any other subject. Yet, it has remained largely unchanged. One of the main reasons for this is the continued defence of the system by those who benefit from it. Donald Trump, for example, uttered his statement in favor of the Electoral College right after he won the election in 2016 and stated the exact opposite following the Republicans 2012 defeat. Examining the system's relationship to democracy, it quickly becomes clear that if democracy means that the majority rules, then the Electoral College is an undemocratic institution. A candidate can win the election with a minority of the votes, campaigning is largely focused on swing states, urban areas are underrepresented and third-party candidates are suppressed – these factors are at play when the most powerful country in the world elects its leader. In the following, this article will deep dive on special features of the Electoral College and which effects they have on democracy.
The number of electors and urban underrepresentation
The president of the United States will be elected on December 17th 2024. Although the American voters have already cast their votes on November 5th, the actual election only takes place later. The general public votes for electors, which then in turn vote for the candidate that received the most votes in their state. The number of electors per state equals the number of members each state has in Congress. That is two senators per state and a population-based number of members of the House of Representatives. This system generally favors states with a low population, as the number of senators is not based on population, and a state must have at least one representative in the house equaling at least three electors – no matter the number of inhabitants. The injustice of this system becomes apparent when comparing how many people one elector represents. While a Californian elector represents roughly 718.000 inhabitants, a Wyomingite elector represents only about 192.000. The vote of a person from Wyoming thus weighs almost four times as much as a Californian’s. All men are created equal but the people in some states are just a little more equal than everyone else.
Winner-Take-All – The result of a classical prisoner’s dilemma
Electors represent different amounts of people, but strictly speaking a lot of voters are not represented at all. That is, because of the general ticket system, commonly referred to as winner-take-all system. When a candidate gains the majority of votes in a state, all the electoral votes go to that candidate, meaning every vote that was casted for another candidate is not even counted. But why can’t a state just split their electors and allocate their votes equally and democratically among the candidates? States indeed could do that, and Nebraska and Maine actually are doing it, but with a split comes a loss in net-influence from a federal perspective. Let’s take a state like Arizona with its 10 electors as an example. If 60% of people in Arizona voted Republican and 40% voted Democratic, the state could split the electors into six Republican voting and four Democratic voting ones. This would, however, create a relatively low net impact, as four electors for both parties would essentially cancel each other out, resulting in a net impact of only two electors. Thus, the state could decide to implement a winner-take-all system to make its votes more valuable than those of other states. In classical prisoner-dilemma style, other states must follow in order not to lose impact. Now that almost every state has implemented the winner-take-all system, it is back to its original state where no one has an advantage, with the added effect that many votes do not count into the election, rendering them as useless and the Electoral College as undemocratic.
Another factor resulting from the winner-take-all system is the suppression of third-party candidates. This can be seen when investigating the 1992 election in which independent candidate Ross Perot received roughly 19% of the popular vote, but not a single elector. Though being popular all around the country, Perot could not achieve a majority in a single state, meaning the vote of almost one in five Americans was not taken into consideration as the electors of their state just voted for the majority candidate.
Although in the past 50 years, not a single independent candidate was able to gain a majority in a state, their impact on the election outcome should not be underestimated. In 2016, Donald Trump won the state of Pennsylvania, awarding him 20 electoral votes. He beat Clinton with a margin of 0.7%. 3.2% of Pennsylvanian votes went to the libertarian party and the green party that year. Both of these parties are independent but are way closer to the democratic party policy wise. If the Libertarian and Green voters had voted democratic instead, Donald Trump would have lost the election. The so-called "spoiler candidates" draw votes from those who hold similar views, yet due to the winner takes all system, these votes are effectively nullified. The general sentiment of the majority is thus lost in in the Electoral College.
Swing State focus
Another indirect effect of the winner-take-all system is the existence of so-called swing states. Increasing a winning margin in a state or losing more narrowly does not impact the nationwide election outcome. This incentivizes candidates to ignore these states and instead focus on those that are extremely close and could swing towards either party. In 2016, 94% of campaigning focused on twelve states; in 2020, the same states accounted for 92% of candidates’ efforts, and the five key battleground states hosted 63% of their visits around the country. 32 states were not visited by either candidate in 2020, once again emphasizing the unequal importance of American voters.
State-based inequalities, however, do not only arise when it comes to campaigning, but also policy. Incumbent presidents focus policy efforts on swing states to achieve advantages for their reelection campaigns. Increased federal spending in a swing state leads to higher voter satisfaction and increases the odds of reelection. The same inequalities can be found in trade policy. When a particular industry is in large parts located in a swing state, it is likely to be favored by tariffs. In the early 1990s, high tariffs were imposed on coal and tire imports. This resulted in a welfare windfall for swing state Ohio and its large tire manufacturing industry, as well as swing state Kentucky and its coal mining industry.
A state’s economy gains an advantage when its population is strongly divided. The Electoral College fosters division and disunity through campaigning biases and political favoritism, resulting in an unequal and unfair allocation of resources.
A system designed to be undemocratic
Let’s take a step back and look at the Electoral College from a somewhat neutral perspective. Voters cast their ballots, and their decision is transmitted by electors that conduct the actual election. Why implement intermediaries and complicate the process? The answer lies in the origins of the Electoral College. As with many things in the American constitution, the Electoral College was devised by PUBLIUS, the alter ego of founding fathers James Jay, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton. Through the so-called federalist papers that were published in the New York Times, they proposed the idea of the Electoral College. Alexander Hamilton, who was later accredited with this particular article, described the idea of the Electoral College as follows:
“A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations”
Hamilton never wanted the voters to make the decision themselves, as he thought they were not capable of such “complicated investigations”. Electors, who back then were well-known, influential, and trusted individuals of their state, would be better suited to carry out the will of their constituents than the constituents themselves. What sounds like a representative democracy at best and an aristocracy at worst must be viewed with respect to the technological and infrastructural advancements of the late 18th century. Nationwide travel was strenuous and largely impossible, and media coverage was limited to newspapers that large parts of the population were incapable of reading. Getting a proper grasp of a candidate was difficult, which explains the introduction of intermediaries that would travel to Washington DC to make an educated decision.
Nowadays the situation is the other way around: presidential candidates are well known throughout the entire country and can be seen and heard in person (if you live in a swing state) or through extensive media coverage. Electors, on the other hand, are largely unknown, and their voting duty is limited to a ceremonial task. When concerns about democratic legitimacy of electors arose, some electors started to indicate which candidate they would vote for. Those were called “pledged electors”, and their practice marked the change from Hamilton’s original system to the one we know today. The Electoral College underwent a transformation from a deliberative body to a complicated transmission mechanism. Its original purpose has been obscured, but the decision to transform it instead of abolishing it led to the democratic injustices pointed out before.
Light at the end of the tunnel? – The National Popular Vote compact
The abolition of the Electoral College is a long overdue reform, particularly when one considers that a majority of the American public has been in favor of this change for decades. A recent poll indicated that 63% of Americans would prefer the president to be chosen through the popular vote instead. An extensive reform would require a constitutional amendment, which, after passing both chambers of Congress, would have to be ratified by 38 states. Such a decision is highly unlikely given that small states would be taking away their own power when ratifying the amendment.
There is, however, another way. A solution to get rid of the Electoral College that lies in its own framework. The National Popular Vote Compact is an association of states that want to pool their electoral votes towards the winner of the popular vote regardless of their state’s outcome. This is possible, because an elector is not obliged to vote according to their state’s election outcome. They can also choose the minority candidate in their state, thus becoming a so-called “faithless elector”. The compact’s member states’ electors would all decide to vote for the popular vote winner, meaning when they reach a combined 270 electoral votes, the compact would decide the election on its own. This adventurous plan is far from unrealistic, as by now, 17 states and the District of Columbia have enacted this procedure into law, totaling 209 electoral votes. In several other states, the bill has passed at least one legislative chamber. If a few of those states were to pass the popular vote bill, the compact would reach the crucial 270 mark. It is, however, to be expected that states would be more hesitant to join the compact when the 270 mark is nearing. It is simple to indicate change, but actually being the one responsible for it is a different story.
This year’s election was won by the popular vote winner, but that does not solve any problems. The United States must face the harsh truth that the federally oriented Electoral College undermines democracy, and just because its has been like this for generations is no excuse to keep it that way. The unifying powers of democratic institutions are required more than ever in a deeply divided America.
Comentarios