electoral college reform: evaluation and policy ... college reform: evaluation and policy...

Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics

1

Electoral College Reform: Evaluation and Policy Recommendations

Albert Qian, Alex Hider, Amanda Khan, Caroline Reisch, Madeline Goossen,

and Araksya Nordikyan


Research Question

What are alternative ways to allocate votes in the Unites States, and which of these systems is best for

California?


The Electoral College: An Introduction

Albert Qian


Background & Summary● Enacted during the

Constitutional Convention of 1787 to reconcile differing state and federal interests, giving leverage to less populous states while preserving the popular vote in the election

● The electors are chosen by the states “in such Manner as the Legislature may thereof direct” (U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1)

Source: (History.com)


Background & Summary cont.

● The constitution gives each state a number of electors equal to its Senate membership (2 per state) and House of Representatives delegation (ranging from 1 to 52)

● The 23rd amendment gives 3 electors to the District of Columbia as well

Source: (History.com)


How it Works


California’s System● California has the largest

amount of electors of any state, 55

● On or before October 1st of the presidential election year, each party’s nominee must submit a list of the 55 electors’ pledges to him/her, with each party having their own method of selecting electors (California Secretary of State)


California’s System cont.● For the Democratic party,

each congressional nominee and each US senate nominee designates one elector

● California operates on a winner-take-all system, with all 55 electoral votes going towards the candidate with the majority of the popular vote in the state (California Secretary of State)


Proportional RepresentationAlex Hider


How it Works


Current Usage● Democratic Primaries

○ Party requires all states to use Proportional Representation■ 15% threshold

○ 25% of votes are decided at-large○ The remainder are decided by district


Current Usage

● Republican Primaries○ States choose how to divide their delegates, but

must use proportional if their primary is before March 14th■ Maximum 20% threshold, some use smaller

○ 10 base electors plus any bonus electors are decided at large

○ 3 delegates per congressional district can be decided by district or based on the statewide vote


Benefits● Reduces the disparity between the popular vote and the share of

electors● Fewer wasted votes● Encourages political parties to campaign everywhere

Drawbacks● In general election could lead to a president winning with a very small

percentage of the vote● Provides a route for extremists● Can prevent winnowing


Implementation● Primaries● General Election

○ State-by-state■ Colorado tried in 2004 with a ballot initiative,

lost 34.7% to 65.2%■ Main argument against it was that it takes

away Colorado’s power, would usually be split 5-4 so no candidates would focus on Colorado


Congressional Districts ModelAmanda Khan


How it Works


Current Usage


Benefits● Simple implementation● More representative → Higher voter turnout● Accurate geographic representation of country ● Not a drastic change● Gives Independents more of a chance● Doesn’t strip states of power

Drawbacks● Can heighten disparity between popular and electoral vote● Seemingly Republican bias● Gerrymandering


GerrymanderingGill v. Whitford (pending)

Current SCOTUS case striving to fix the

inequalities of gerrymandering


Starting Point ● Consider changing how district

lines are drawn in nationwide

● Congressional district voting would need to start in a swing state rather than CA


Ranked Choice VotingCaroline Reisch


22

How it Works


23


24

RCV Usage


25

Benefits

● Saves money○ Eliminates primary & runoff elections

■ Turnout issues ● Stronger voices ● Better candidate choices● More positive campaigns ● Eliminates “spoiler effect”● Accountable leaders● Broadens participation

Source: FairVote


26

Empirical Support: Four Bay Area Cities

● Higher Voter Satisfaction ● Less Candidate Criticism● Less Negativity ● High Voter Understanding● Overall Support


27Source: FairVote


28

Drawbacks

● Administrative Burdens● Financial costs ● Implementation Time ● Confusing to Voters ● Example of Portland, Maine


Implementation - North Carolina in 2010


30

California & Beyond

Source: Phone call with Madeline, Research Fellow at FairVote


Remapping the Electoral CollegeMadeline Goossen


Methodology● Using data from the

past 15 presidential elections and reallocating votes using the proportional model

● Focus on main candidates, but all electoral votes are considered


Elections from 1960-1972Name PV % EC New

Kennedy 49.72% 303 270

Nixon 49.55% 219 261

Other 0.73% 15 6

Name PV % EC New

Johnson 61.05% 486 320

Goldwater 38.47% 52 215

Other 0.48% 0 3

Name PV % EC New

Nixon 43.42% 301 234

Humphrey 42.72% 191 225

Other 13.86% 46 79

Name PV % EC New

Nixon 60.67% 520 332

McGovern 37.52% 17 205

Other 1.81% 1 1

1960

1964

1968

1972


Elections from 1976-1988

Name PV % EC New

Carter 50.08% 297 272

Ford 48.01% 240 263

Other 1.91% 1 2

Name PV % EC New

Reagan 50.75% 489 280

Carter 41.01% 49 224

Other 8.24% 0 34

Name PV % EC New

Bush 53.37% 426 292

Dukakis 45.65% 111 245

Other 0.98% 1 1

Name PV % EC New

Reagan 58.77% 525 321

Mondale 40.56% 13 217

Other 0.67% 0 0

1976

1980

1984

1988


Case Study: Election of 1968

19 18

3

1 1

3

22

1

10 10 5

4 14

1 1 1

3 2

22

2 2

2 2

2 1

3 2 1

2 2

2 2

2 2

3 2

4 2 1

4 3 1

4 5 1

5 4

5 5 2

2 2 2

3 3 4

6 5 1

12 212

46 4

2 2

1 2 4

13 14 2

2119 3

4 3 5

5 9

1 3

2 2

2 1

9 10 2

1 24 43

4 23 4 4 24 45

44

78 2

21

1 82

323

12 11 3

7 5 1

3 3 1

5 44



24 16

3

2 1

2

22

14 11 1

5 13

2 1

4 2

13

3 1

2 1

2 1

4 3

2 1

2 1

2 1

3 1

4 2 1

5 3

4 5 1

4 3

6 5 1

3 3

5 5

5 5 1

13

79 1

2 2

4 3

13 10 2

1819 4

7 5

7 7

2 1

2 1

2 1

10 9 1

1 25 5

4 12 5 54 45

34

79 1

12

5 4

44

7 5 1

7 5 1

3 3

6 15

5

1

1

1

1

1 1

13

1

1

1


Remapping the Electoral College Continued

Araksya Nordikyan

Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics Elections from 1992-2004

1992

2000

1996

2004

Name PV % EC New

Clinton 43.01% 370 225

Bush 37.45% 168 203

Other 19.54% 0 106

Name PV % EC New

Clinton 49.23% 379 263

Dole 40.72% 159 225

Other 10.05% 0 50

Name PV % EC New

W. Bush 47.87% 271 264

Gore 48.38% 266 258

Other 3.75% 1 16

Name PV % EC New

W. Bush 50.73% 286 272

Kerry 48.26% 251 258

Other 1.01% 1 8


Elections from 2008-20162008

2016

2012

Name PV % EC New

Obama 52.86% 305 288

McCain 45.60% 173 250

Other 1.54% 0 0

Name PV % EC New

Obama 51.01% 332 272

Romney 47.15% 206 259

Other 1.84% 0 7

Name PV % EC New

Trump 45.93% 304 253

Clinton 48.02% 227 261

Other 6.05% 7 24


18 25

2


232

31 1

112

3

3

4

2

4

8

4

4

2

5

2

3

3

13

3

1

2

2

1

3

3

4

5

11

5

3

2

1

1

4

3

1

12

2

21

1

2

1

1

1

2

3

2

1

2

2

3

1

1

7

1

22

1

11 1

3 1

5

11

1

1

5

3

3

6

3

10

64

5

4

8

4

8

6

6

4

10

64

5

3

85

7

25

1

1

11

1

5

2

2

1

2

1

1

1

2

5

6

1

1

10

16

1

8

11

1

5 21

1

2

1

0

4

1

3

3

6

1

3

1

2

Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics Case Study: Election of 2016

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

4

7

11

5

14

32

3

2

2

3

4

2

5

1

1

2

1

4

1

16

25

1

3

4

2

4

34

14

63

5

7 2

4 5

8

6

2

4

3

2

3

8

19

5

3

52

4

2

2

5

2

3

3

3

3

17

4

6

96

8

5

3

3

8

17

8

6

4

3 3

10

11

1

0

2

4

8

6

9

4

2

3

6

2

2

7

1

2

0

2

3

1


Remapping Evaluation

Problems● Rounding to whole numbers can skew results ● Candidates can fail to reach 270 - requires reworking of

current system

Benefits● Elections more closely resemble popular vote percentages● Proportional model allows for viable third party candidates● Increases competitiveness of elections


Public Opinion SurveyAlbert Qian


Survey Demographics

● What is their age?● What is their

ethnicity?● What is their

education level?● What is their average

household income?


Average Household Income


Survey Questions

● Focused on determining the knowledge surveyors already had of the Electoral College

● Wanted to determine their opinions on alternative methods


Policy Recommendations 1. Restructure system of drawing district lines2. Ranked Choice Voting should be used for local and state

elections nationwide3. Implement Proportional Representation in the General

Electiona. Utilize in Primary contests b. Republican Party either should require this, or each state

should switch to this method c. Start with a coalition of swing states: Florida,

Pennsylvania, Virginia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, North Carolina

d. If no one reaches 270, whoever garners the most electoral votes wins

electoral college reform: evaluation and policy ... college reform: evaluation and policy...

Documents