Welcome to the Axosoft Community, Sign in | Register | Help
in Search

Hamid Shojaee

Random Thoughts about Axosoft and technology

The 22% Majority and the Electoral College

I normally don’t blog about politics, but the Presidential race this year has gotten me thinking about the American Democracy and how we Americans pick the President of the United States.  We all know that when we vote for the President, we’re not actually voting for the President, but instead, we are voting for how our state’s Electoral votes should be cast.  Most people also know that whichever candidate wins the majority of people’s votes is awarded all of the Electoral votes for that state.  What you may not known is that it’s possible for a candidate in a 2-man race, who receives only 22% of people’s vote, to become the President of the United States.  You read that right.  Th current rules allow for a candidate who wins a landslide 78% of the popular vote to actually lose the election!

 

How is that possible, you ask?  Simple mathematics.  To understand how the Electoral College system of picking a President works, lets assume we only have 2 states in the United States of This Example (USTE).  USTE’s states have the following names, populations and Electoral Votes:

 

State Name

Population

Electoral Votes

State A

5,000,001

10

State B

4,999,999

9

 

In order for a candidate to win the Presidency in our fictitious country, USTE, the candidate must receive 10 electoral votes (10 being the majority of the 19 possible Electoral Votes).  Now, lets assume that during the election in USTE, the votes are counted and the results are as follows:

 

Candidate Name

Votes Received

In State A

Votes Received

In State B

Total Votes

Received

Total Electoral Votes Received

Candidate Y

2,500,001

0

2,500,001

10 (State A)

Candidate Z

2,500,000

4,999,999

7,499,999

9 (State B)

 

Note that in this election, Candidate Y wins the Presidency since he received the 10 Electoral Votes needed to win the majority of the Electoral Votes.  Candidate Z lost the election even though 75% of the people voted for Candidate Z.

 

The United States of America also picks its President in much the same way as our fictitious country, USTE.  However, United States has many more states with a complex array of Electoral Votes that’s loosely based on population.  In some states (such as Wyoming), the state receives 1 Electoral Vote for every 167,000 of its population (Wyoming has 3 electoral votes with only a population of 501,242) while other states (such as California) receive 1 Electoral Vote for every 645,000 of its population (California has only 55 Electoral votes with a whopping population of 35,484,453).  If California’s representation was to be similar to Wyoming, California would have to receive 212 Electoral Votes.

 

This completely unbalanced Electoral College system of voting allows for a worst-possible case for the President of the United States to be determined by only 22% of voters while the 78% majority go home to a democratically picked President by the 22%. Of course, this dooms-day scenario is highly unlikely, but I can't help wondering why it should be posible at all? 

Published Wednesday, October 06, 2004 10:15 PM by Hamid

Comment Notification

If you would like to receive an email when updates are made to this post, please register here

Subscribe to this post's comments using RSS

Comments

 

Anonymous said:

Nicely written Hamid. I hope this gets some press attention!

Originally posted by:
ali parnian
October 7, 2004 12:59 PM
 

Anonymous said:

Nice writeup!

Originally posted by:
Michael Robinson
December 10, 2004 2:45 PM
 

Anonymous said:

No press attention is needed. Read your American history books. This is nothing new.

Originally posted by:
Happy Gilmore
January 31, 2005 3:29 PM
 

Hamid said:

It's nothing new, but almost nobody whom I've talked with realizes how bad the current system could get. On CNN during the election, one of the guests with Wolf Blitzer was saying that he thought it was not possible for there to be a 3 or 4% difference between the candidates and for the lower vote getter to still win. He thought at most it could be only 1 or 2 percentage points. The reality is the worst case scenario is up to a 56% difference! That is crazy.
February 6, 2005 3:20 PM
 

Anonymous said:

Let's try this again.

Colorado had a ballot initiative ( http://tinyurl.com/72y8z ) to "allocate electoral votes proportionately according to the popular vote, rather than giving a winner all of the state's electoral votes," but voters failed to pass the amendment. Sadly, the Electoral College doesn't decide how the states must choose their electors, and most states choose them winner-takes-all. Were this not the case, Candidate Z in the scenario above could have won.

But even getting rid of the electoral college or making all states choose their electors proportional to the number of votes won't solve the problem of a minority of the votes deciding the election. Governor Schwarzeneggar won with less than half (48.6%) of the votes in California's recall election. With the 135 candidates on the ballot, anyone could conceptually have received less than 1% of the votes and still have won. Preferential voting methods ( http://tinyurl.com/8s5pu ) are designed to address this.

Originally posted by:
Derek
April 20, 2005 12:02 AM
 

Hamid said:

Good points. The 2-party system is not bad in ensuring that at least one of the candidates will receive close to or more than 50% of the votes. However, the electoral system is flawed in that this candidate might still lose.

Colorado's initiative failed due to it being the only one of three states to switch to a more balanced system. This type of initiative has to be nation-wide rather than by individual states. Additionally, we need to get rid of electoral college completely as it's unbalanced representation to begin with. For example, in some states 1 electoral college represents 100,000 people while in another state it represents 500,000 people. In such cases we are essentially saying the will of those 100,000 people is equivalent to 500,000 others. That is NUTS!

Thanks for your great post.
April 20, 2005 8:05 AM
 

Anonymous said:

I just now read this blog but I sure hope that what I'm reading isn't a bunch of people wanting the President decided by overall popular vote.

I sure don't want California, New York and Florida alone with their massive populations deciding who the next President is.

Whether you like it or not, we have the best thing going.

Originally posted by:
Jason
September 6, 2006 7:08 PM
 

Hamid said:

Jason, that's an interesting view. So what you're saying is that you don't like the Majority of the "people" deciding who the president is, but rather some random selection process that gives huge weight to states of low population. That makes a lot of sense.

When the system allows for the possibility of just 22% of the population to determine the president (against the will of the other 78%), although it's never happened before, the system is still broken.

Hamid
September 7, 2006 5:53 AM

Leave a Comment

(required) 
(optional)
(required) 
Submit



© 2002 - 2007, Axosoft, LLC. All Rights Reserved. | Privacy
Bug Tracking | Defect Tracking Videos | Help Desk Software