Graduating from the Electoral College

Graduating

from the

Electoral College

Tomas J. McIntee

Copyright © 2023 Tomas J. McIntee

All rights reserved.

McIntee, Tomas J.

Graduating from the Electoral College / Tomas J. McIntee

Includes bibliographic references and index.

Library of Congress Control Number: 2022922853

ISBN 978-1-959266-00-6 (hardcover)

ISBN 978-1-959266-01-3 (paperback)

ISBN 978-1-959266-02-0 (electronic)

ISBN 978-1-959266-03-7 (alt. ed. hc.)

ISBN 978-1-959266-04-4 (alt. ed. pb.)

Published by Hurricane Lamp Press

PO Box 3715

Chapel Hill

North Carolina

27515

Cover design by Alexis Waters

Authored in RMarkdown

For the people of the United States of America

Table of Contents

Preface

Chapter 1: Introduction

Common misunderstandings about the Electoral College

Major problems in early America

A chaotic cousin to a simple popular vote

Chapter 2: The origin of the electoral colleges

The Constitutional Convention

The separate electoral colleges

The absent motives

A brief technical prelude on Electoral College geography

Chapter 3: Hamilton’s Electoral College (1788-1800)

The Washington elections

1800: A tied election

Chapter 4: Jefferson’s Electoral College (1804-1824)

The 12th Amendment

A string of victories for the Jeffersonians

The end of the transitional Electoral College system

Chapter 5: Jackson’s Electoral College (1828-1852)

Jackson’s elections

The 1836-1840 elections and a regional strategy

1844-1848 and the first spoilers

Chapter 6: Civil War, minority rule, and slavery (1856-1864)

Three elections in brief

Minority rule resistant to spoiler effects

The impact of the Electoral College on slavery

Chapter 7: Lincoln’s Electoral College (1868-1916)

The Reconstruction Era

1876: Uncertainty and fraud in the Electoral College

The era of the Empire State

Woodrow Wilson and the Condorcet problem

Chapter 8: A coeducational Electoral College (1920-1956)

A string of Republican landslides

The election of 1928 and the allocation problem

The Roosevelt elections

A Southern strategy

The Eisenhower elections

Chapter 9: The system in transition (1960-1968)

The uncertain election of 1960

The 1964 election and the Voting Rights Act

1968: The presidential election system reshaped

Chapter 10: The modern system (1972-2020)

Broad coalitions versus regional factions

Partisan advantage in the Electoral College

The Obama elections

The Trump elections

The challenges to the system

Chapter 11: A Primer on Power in the Electoral College

The mathematics of power in the Electoral College

Historical distribution of power in the Electoral College

Power in systems other than the Electoral College

The difference between small and large states’ power

Chapter 12: Problems and solutions

The quirks of the Electoral College system

Minor reforms

Major reforms

Recommendations

A few final words

Bibliography

About the author

Preface

The purpose of this book is to more clearly illuminate the flaws in the Electoral College system. It is my hope that it will help clarify and solidify the public case against the Electoral College, and to build credibility for that case. Many of the flaws discussed in this book are already known by experts, but not widely understood. This book also offers rebuttals to many of the common arguments offered in favor of the Electoral College and seeks to debunk some of the myths about the Electoral College that have helped to preserve it.

What makes this book distinct from many others on the subject is that it comes from a mathematical perspective, informed by voting theory and systematic quantitative analysis of the historical record. It is intended to complement other books on the Electoral College coming from the perspectives of political science, history, and law - books like Why the Electoral College Is Bad for America (2019) by George Edwards, Representation and the Electoral College (2019) by Robert Alexander, and Why Do We Still Have the Electoral College? (2020) by Alexander Keyssar. For a fuller understanding of a topic, it helps to study it from many different perspectives.

While this book was written by a mathematician with a mathematical perspective, the reader does not need to have a background in advanced mathematics to follow its arguments. There are some aspects of the Electoral College that are mathematically complex to analyze, but I believe grasping the conclusions of that analysis does not present a mathematical challenge. It is also my hope that my different arguments with their similar conclusions might help bring around some of the skeptics who have not been convinced by the political scientists, historians, and lawyers who have written about the problems with the Electoral College.

This book starts with a brief overview of how the American presidential election system works, where it came from, and a little bit about what the system is not. An extensive mythology has grown up around the Electoral College, and not all of it is factual. This brief overview takes two chapters. The main body of the book is organized in chronological order, systematically examining the elections from 1788 to 2020. From Chapter 3 to Chapter 10, the various quirks of the Electoral College system are explored chronologically, with a brief discussion of every election. This builds up - slowly - to a systematic analysis of all elections.

About a third of the way through this pool of elections, we reach the year 1860, when something very important happened: Abraham Lincoln is elected. This in turn led to a civil war, which ended the South’s peculiar institution of slavery. Chapter 6 provides a retrospective on the impact of the presidential elections of 1788-1860 on slavery, considering the argument that the Electoral College served to protect slavery or was designed to protect slavery.

Analysis of the whole body of presidential elections as a group takes place in Chapter 11, where I talk about how power has been distributed in the Electoral College over time - that is, in key battleground states, particularly large battleground states. Some readers may prefer to skip straight to Chapter 11 after the first two or three chapters and read the middle chapters afterward. The final chapter summarizes the problems of the Electoral College system and discusses briefly some of the many possible solutions to those problems.

Writing this book has been an education and an inspiration, and I feel obliged to thank a great many people who gave me significant insights into the subject at hand and the writing of the book. Particular thanks go to Rick LaRue, Robert Nemanich, Tom Cronin, Polly Baca, Michael Baca, David Paletz, Mike Flynn, David Armstrong, Rick Klima, Don Saari, and my family.

Chapter 1: Introduction

As of the time of the writing of this book, the United States elects its presidents in a most peculiar fashion: Every four years, several hundred people gather together in small groups scattered across the country to cast their ballots for president. These assemblies are collectively known as the Electoral College, [1] and they play a small but vital role in electing the president.

Unlike every other elected official, they are commonly elected without having their names appear on the ballots, and while their identities are a matter of public record, they remain obscure both before and after their term in office. The position of elector usually is won by reliable political loyalists rather than politicians, and the office that they serve is viewed as largely ceremonial – human cogs in a mechanical process.

The electors have the official power to decide the election. For example, after the 2016 election, in which Donald Trump won enough states to make him the putative winner of the election, many public calls were made for some Republican electors to break ranks.[2] This type of exercise of free will by the presidential electors would have been in line with some of the Framers’ intentions for the Electoral College,[3] but would likely also have led to a major political crisis. After all, no presidential election has ever been clearly decided by electors’ discretion since 1796.

In 2020, the Supreme Court decided that states have the authority to dictate how electors vote, enforcing the pledges of electors.[4] For this reason, it is unlikely that electors’ discretion will have a meaningful impact on many future presidential elections - with the notable exception of cases where a presidential candidate dies before the electors vote, as happened in 1872.

One of the various reasons that electors were asked to break their pledges of support for Donald Trump in 2016 was that he had, across the country as a whole, won fewer votes than Hillary Clinton. This feature of the Electoral College is one of the most peculiar features in a system dominated by the effects of popular votes; since electoral votes are awarded on a state-by-state basis, one candidate can win a majority of electoral votes while enjoying the support of fewer voters than another candidate. This has happened about half a dozen times.[5]

There are very few countries where a candidate can honestly win an election by getting fewer votes than their opponent. A common myth is that the Electoral College represents a unique and wise American institution, carefully designed by the Framers. In spite of the popularity of this positive myth, the Electoral College is still an immensely unpopular institution. From 1967 to 2011, Gallup conducted nine national polls on the Electoral College, showing 58% to 80% of the population in favor of amending the constitution to get rid of the Electoral College and only 12% to 37% opposed to reform.[6] Support for the Electoral College reached a historic high after 2016 due to a spike in support from Republicans, with 47% opposed to reform and 49% in favor of a constitutional amendment abolishing the Electoral College.

The partisan embrace of the Electoral College system by Republicans in the last few years is unique and interesting - and apparently based on the notion that the Electoral College system has a clear partisan bias that favors Republicans. While this is understandable given the results of the 2016 election, it is not well-founded, as discussed at length in Chapter 10. This is only one of a wide assortment of false myths about the Electoral College system, its behavior, and its origins.

Gallup polling on the electoral college system by year

Common misunderstandings about the Electoral College

There are many myths and misunderstandings about the Electoral College. Some are persistent; some are quite short-lived. For example, leading into the 2016 election, many political analysts believed that there was a blue wall of safely Democratic states that made it very difficult for a Republican to win, based on the last few electoral cycles.[7] The myth of the blue wall evaporated quite suddenly after the 2016 election. It’s common for people to believe that one or the other political party has a real advantage in the Electoral College because the Electoral College is a chaotic system, and it’s easy to misunderstand the behavior of a chaotic system.

One of the most popular and persistent myths is that the Electoral College protects small states. Contrary to assertions made by both defenders of the Electoral College and its critics, the Electoral College itself was neither designed to help small states nor has it had the effect of doing so. (See Chapters 2 and 11.) As a point of mathematical and historical fact, large states have held a disproportionate amount of power in the Electoral College thus far.

Share of electoral votes and electoral power by state in presidential elections 1828-2020.

The only part of the presidential election system that was designed to help small states was the House contingent election process, which has only been used twice. If small-state delegates like Roger Sherman had known this at the time of the Constitutional Convention, they may not have approved of the system.

A related claim is that the Electoral College helps rural voters, or was designed to help rural voters; and that without the Electoral College, only large cities would matter. This is similarly untrue. Machine politics in large cities has played a key role in presidential elections. For example, the election of 1888 (see Chapter 7) notably featured a multi-million dollar voter bribery scheme targeting voters in New York City. The election of 1888 was one of many elections decided by New York. More recently, machine politics in Chicago played a prominent role in the 1960 election.

Key battleground states tend to pivot as a result of shifts in their largest cities. For example, in the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton could have won Florida, Wisconsin, and Michigan by matching Obama’s 2012 performance in Madison, Detroit, and the three counties of the Miami metro area. This would have shifted 54 electoral votes from Trump’s column to Clinton’s and given her the win.

Another myth is that the Electoral College system prevents the election of populist demagogues. This might have been true of the version of the Electoral College envisioned by Alexander Hamilton, but the real Electoral College has functioned differently. There is nothing about the Electoral College system that prevents the election of demagogues or would-be dictators. While a few electors have tried to faithfully act in accordance with Hamilton’s vision, such as the Hamilton electors of the 2016 election, they have never proven decisive.

The fact of the matter is that electors do not run under their own names or on their reputation as wise deciders, but are elected mostly anonymously based on their declared support for a named candidate. Pointedly, in any scenario where a violently anti-democratic candidate can command support from a significant minority of the voting population, it is not difficult for them to find loyal supporters to serve as electors.

The main difference between the evolved Electoral College system and a popular vote is simply that the Electoral College is more chaotic; which means that a divisive figure can manage to win a majority in the Electoral College with significantly less than a majority of the vote - in fact, it has been done with as little as 39.8% of the vote.[8] Contrary to the claims of those who defend the Electoral College,[9] regionally divisive candidates perform better in the Electoral College than candidates who appeal to a broad coalition across the country.

Many people suggest that the Electoral College is simply outdated.[10] While I would agree that it is outdated, the Electoral College was never the best solution to the problem of how to elect a president. It was an expedient political compromise, an exercise in hasty political sausage-making that was fatally flawed and crudely repaired with the 12th Amendment. At best, it avoided a set of political problems that no longer exist; those problems were permanently solved not by the Electoral College itself, but by continued democratic evolution, a civil war, and several constitutional amendments.

The role of slavery in the creation of the Electoral College system (discussed in Chapter 2) and the degree to which the Electoral College interacted with the institution of slavery (overviewed in Chapter 6 are frequently overstated.[11] While slavery may have helped fuel opposition to a direct vote among Southern delegates, there was also significant opposition to a direct vote in New England - and significant opposition to the Electoral College from Southerners. The Framers never made a choice between the Electoral College and a direct vote, and most of the leading advocates for versions of the Electoral College wanted a popular vote.

The fact that the Electoral College was proposed mainly as an alternative to election by Congress (and backed by the Framers who preferred a direct popular vote) is often overlooked in the mythology of the Electoral College. This mythology seems retroactively constructed around the assumption that the Electoral College was proposed as an alternative to a direct popular vote. Instead, it was an alternative to election by Congress - something frequently referred to as a parliamentary system. This is well-known among those who have studied the origin of the system.[12]

The fact that the Electoral College required immediate alteration in the form of the 12th Amendment in order to become minimally functional is underemphasized. The Framers anticipated that each state’s electors would make independent decisions, meaning that votes would be usually divided widely between many different candidates. They expected electors would usually use one of their two votes on a home state favorite.[13] Instead, a national two-party system developed, with each party trying to elect both a president and vice president. This resulted in the election of a president and vice president from different parties in 1796, and a political deadlock from a technically tied election in 1800.

Many – perhaps all – of the Founding Fathers disliked the Electoral College system once it was in operation.[14] This included James Madison, widely credited as the chief architect of the Constitution in general and of the Electoral College system in particular.[15] The Electoral College was a failure to begin with, in other words; and now it is not merely a failure, but an obsolete failure. We know much more about democracy now than we did 230 years ago. It is past time that we graduated from the Electoral College.

What the Electoral College should be replaced with is a question with a simple correct answer: A direct vote by the people. (A parliamentary system could also be a correct answer - but, thanks to gerrymandering, not a simple one.) The details of what that answer should mean involve a few complexities. There are many different ways that people can - and do - vote. Many countries, as well as some American states, require a majority vote, which usually means providing for two rounds of voting. Ranked choice voting has recently gained traction in Maine. Most of the alternatives to the current Electoral College system are superior.

Major problems in early America

The reason why most of the Framers eventually came to prefer the Electoral College system to Congress electing the president was that it removed a potential conflict of interest. They wanted the executive to be able to effectively oppose Congress if necessary, one of many checks in a large system of checks and balances discussed at length in almost every basic textbook on American history. It wasn’t introduced to address the problems that election by Congress already avoided; remember, election by Congress was the standard that every other method was measured against. There were serious obstacles to a direct vote.

The Electoral College shared in common with election by Congress one key feature: It finessed a serious disagreement among the various delegates coming from different states. The disagreement was over how to answer a simple and difficult question: Who should be allowed to vote? In other words, the United States was divided by deep and fundamental disagreements over the nature of democracy. The Electoral College was not the only possible method of finessing this problem, and the former deep disagreements over who should be allowed to vote have mostly been resolved.

In the early days of the United States, the different states had very different rules for who was permitted to participate in elections. Each state had independently arrived at its own set of rules, some of them strikingly different. For example, New Jersey allowed women with property to

vote; Pennsylvania allowed any man to vote - even black men without property; while in Virginia, an adult white male householder who owned 24 acres of farmland did not have the right to vote.[16] In 1790, Virginia had a significantly smaller electorate than Pennsylvania in spite of having more free white residents.

These differences were not arbitrary, but the result of underlying disagreements over how democratic our society should be. Imposing uniform voting standards was, at the time, a political and practical impossibility. Those who supported a popular vote tried to impose a uniform voting standard requiring land ownership for participation in federal elections but failed. Making presidential elections indirect allowed the Framers a way around this thorny issue.

The argument over which free citizens of the United States should be allowed to vote took a long time to resolve, but by now, it has happened. A significant number of constitutional amendments (notably the 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th) have guaranteed the right to participate in elections to all adult Americans aged 18 or older regardless, with the notable exception of convicted criminals. Variation in turnout from state to state is affected by swing state status (in other words, by the Electoral College system itself) more than it is driven by the most aggressive exclusion of convicted felons from voter rolls.[17]

Even many informal obstacles to voting are no longer allowed. Poll taxes are forbidden. Literacy tests are forbidden. Any adult citizen