A Simple Proposal for Improving the Electoral Process
Long before the 2008 election, it simply won’t matter whether
or how most Americans vote. Whether they
stay home, vote for Ronald McDonald, pick a name out of a hat, or spend
countless months deliberating over the right choice for
In the 2004 presidential election, 31 states (including the
District of Columbia) had voter margins exceeding 10%, setting up a scenario
where the results of those states’ elections, and the subsequent assignment of
their allocated electoral college votes, was known with near certainty long
before the actual election. Another 10
states had margins exceeding 5%, leaving only 10 states where the results were
close enough to leave a sense of uncertainty. The media made this point clear. And worse, the candidates and their
campaigns made this equally clear by focusing their campaigns on these few
states and essentially eliminating all communications in the other 40 states.
whether you live in a state where your vote “matters”
or not. As shown in the chart on the
right (click the chart to enlarge), average voter turnout in states with greater
than 10% election margins was nearly 7% lower than turnout in states where the
results were less certain. While this
is certainly influenced by the increased media attention and “get out the vote”
campaigns in those hotly contested states, the undeniable fact is that voters
in the vast majority of the states feel somewhat left out of the democratic
process, and they often show it by becoming disinterested and removing
themselves entirely.
Designed originally as a means to help keep the smaller
states from being rendered powerless by the more populous states, the Electoral
College is no stranger to debate. As
recently as the 2000 election, a chorus of people called for an end to the
Electoral College, arguing that it was an antiquated process that was no longer
relevant in modern times. However, the
difference between their argument and mine is one of goals. In 2000, the voices of change were
advocating it largely out of political convenience, namely because their
candidate (Al Gore) had lost the election despite winning the popular vote by
more than 500,000 votes. My position
and proposal are not motivated by a desire to help shift circumstances in the
favor of my candidate (as evidenced by the chart below which shows that the
results of the 2004 election would have remained the same under my proposed
change – again, click chart to enlarge), but rather, a sincere concern and a
desire to avoid a political outcome that I foresee in the future – where presidential
elections are decided in a few swing counties in Florida and Ohio, while the
rest of the country becomes a passive spectator, watching as $500mm of
television ads are run in Dade and Cuyahoga counties.
I am not proposing that we eliminate the Electoral
College. However, I believe that by
simply changing it so that Electoral College votes are allocated pro rata according to the actual
election results in that state, two important changes will happen. First, from the perspective of individual
voters, the perception of voting importance will be universally and immediately
increased. And second, from the
perspective of politicians, every vote will count the same – a vote in
In the chart below, I have attempted to demonstrate how this proposal would impact the results of the 2004 election. For the purposes of this chart, I chose to use two decimal places. However, in a real election setting, I think you would have to eliminate rounding entirely. This obviously would mean the end of the human role in the Electoral College, as you cannot have 5.53467 individuals from Arizona casting votes for President Bush, but I think it's a small and necessary change, which would dramatically improve presidential politics.
Why Change The System?
Many of the initial people that I've spoken to about this proposed change have reacted in similar ways. Their first response is usually something along the lines of "hum, that makes sense", but they quickly follow it up with some variant of "yeah, but I'm sure they had some good reason for designing it the way it is, so it's probably better just to leave it as is." In actuality, there seems to be at least reasonable data to support the idea that the actual process of the election of the president was given relatively little thought (as compared to other more controversial matters at the time) beyond ensuring that George Washington would be elected the first President.
The reality is that, regardless of the legitamacy of the original idea, the world has changed enough in the past 200+ years to merit at least an honest assesment of whether or not we're still employing the best system for the conditions of our time. The advent of radio, then television and now the Internet have dramatically changed the communication landscape from the original print world within which this system was devised, and given how dramatically each of these has impacted our own lives, it seems fair to assume that they would have some impact on presidential politics as well. While I think there is data to support my belief that a simple change like the one that I am proposing would positively impact voter turnout (which would be a good thing), that's not the underlying reason for this proposed change. The real reason is that as politics gets increasingly sophisticated with the continued development of instantaneously integrated nationwide real-time tracking polls, many Americans will be increasingly left out of the system - ignored because their vote is meaningless in a state that was decided years before the actual election - and our country's top official will be elected based upon how well his or her views sell in Florida or Ohio, rather than in every living room in America. While this might be in the best interests of people in Dade or Cuyahoga county, it sure doesn't seem like it's in the best interest of our country.


Recent Comments