Once again with upcoming Presidential election the thorny issue of the Electoral College rears its ugly head. Obviously we're stuck with it this fall, and for the forseeable future, barring something like the National Popular Vote compact takes place. In the meantime, I decided to crank the numbers, to see how much the disproportionate allocation of electoral votes due to each state receiving 2 votes regardless of populations, affects the political balance of power between the two parties. Some interesting results follow...
I will use the 2004 election results as a baseline. I divide up the states into 4 groups: Very Small (3-4 EVs), Small (5-9 EVs), Medium (10-14 EVs), and Large (15+ EVs).
Group | # States | Total EVs | Percentage |
Very Small | 13 | 44 | 8.2% |
Small | 17 | 114 | 21.2% |
Medium | 10 | 109 | 20.3% |
Large | 11 | 271 | 50.4% |
What's interesting is the partisan breakdown per group. 'Red' states are in bold:
Very Small States: Net +6 for Democratic Party
* 3 EVs:
Alaska, Delaware, DC,
Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont,
Wyoming
* 4 EVs: Hawaii,
Idaho, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island
Small States: Net +86 for Republican Party
* 5 EVs:
Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, West Virginia
* 6 EVs:
Arkansas, Kansas, Mississippi
* 7 EVs: Connecticut,
Iowa, Oklahoma, Oregon
* 8 EVs:
Kentucky, South Carolina
* 9 EVs:
Alabama, Colorado, Louisiana
Medium States: Net +3 for Republican Party
* 10 EVs:
Arizona, Maryland, Minnesota, Wisconsin
* 11 EVs:
Indiana, Missouri, Tennessee, Washington
* 12 EVs: Massachusetts
* 13 EVs:
Virginia
Large States: Net +49 for Democratic Party
Georgia (15), New Jersey (15), North Carolina (15), Michigan (17), Ohio (20), Illinois (21), Pennsylvania (21), Florida (27), New York (31), Texas (34), California (55)
Somewhat surprisingly, the Democrats do well in the very smallest states, the ones where the disproportionate allocation of Electoral Votes is most severe. They are absolutely destroyed in the Small states, hold their own on the Medium states, and for the 11 largest states (whose total EVs are enough to win the election), they have a sizeable advantage.
Of course, these results are from 2004, but I think that's a useful election to use as a control factor, showing the USA at its most divided. These results support the argument that while disproportionate allocation of EVs helps the Republicans (giving them an 80 Electoral Vote advantage), winner takes all helps the Democratic Party, as diverse coalitions of constituencies (more often urban-based) band together to defeat the more homogeneous Republican electoral blocs (everywhere else). I don't think it's a coincidence that in 2008 Obama is either leading or tied in Ohio, and competitive in Florida and North Carolina. Texas and Georgia are safe Republican states in 2008, but long-term demographics are probably working in our favor.
As this is a simple numeric observation, these results do not have the explanatory power that looking at each individual state in terms of its unique history and relationship to its surrounding political geography would have. It does show how absolutely critical it was to defeat the scheme that would have proportionately divided California's electoral votes; as long as we have the current Electoral College system, all future such attempts should probably be strongly resisted, because they are most likely to occur in the larger states, and would hurt Democrats the most. Whether a uniform national adoption of such a scheme would help or hurt Democrats is unclear, although the fact that Republican strength is concentrated in smaller states would make the +2 EV given to each state more significant.
I am hopeful after the 2010 census and reapportionment we can launch a new and successful effort to abolish the Electoral College, so future diaries like this will not be necessary! ;)