Has the electoral college grown more disproportional? An analysis of election results, 1876–2020

Author:

Hooghe Marc1,Stiers Dieter1ORCID,Lewis‐Beck Michael S.2

Affiliation:

1. Department of Political Science University of Leuven Leuven Belgium

2. Department of Political Science University of Iowa Iowa City Iowa USA

Abstract

AbstractEspecially following the 2000 and the 2016 presidential elections, some authors have denounced the legitimacy of the Electoral College as a presidential selection method. It is alleged that the college is not representative of the electorate as a whole and tends to favor one specific political party. In this article, we compare the popular vote with the composition of the Electoral College for every presidential contest since 1876 (n = 37 elections). We confirm that the college is indeed disproportional as it provides a major bonus to the winning candidate. Although this disproportionality has become slightly stronger during the 1876–2020 period, it does not specifically benefit one political party. Measured at the level of the states, there is no substantial increase in bias with regard to geographic representation. However, to the extent that electoral races become tighter, as was the case in the last quarter of the 19th century, the risk that results fall within a margin of statistical error becomes larger. This suggests that the current controversy finds its source less in the electoral rules and more in the situational and highly competitive balance of party competition.Related ArticlesArdoin, Phillip J., and Bryan M. Parsons. 2007. “Partisan Bias in the Electoral College: Cheap States and Wasted Votes.”Politics & Policy35(2): 342–64.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747‐1346.2007.00063.x.Crow, Deserai, and Laura Wolton. 2020. “Talking Policy in Congressional Campaigns: Construction of Policy Narratives in Electoral Politics.”Politics & Policy48(4): 658–99.https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12369.McKenzie, Mark. 2009. “Attitudes toward Electoral College Reform: Understanding Opinion Formation on Complicated Public Policy Issues.”Politics & Policy37(2): 265–88.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747‐1346.2009.00172.x.

Publisher

Wiley

Subject

Political Science and International Relations,Sociology and Political Science

Reference28 articles.

1. Are Presidential Inversions Inevitable? Comparing Eight Counterfactual Rules for Electing the U.S. President*

2. Sur les élections;Condorcet Nicolas;Journal d'instruction sociale,1793

Cited by 3 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. The New Politics (and Political Science) of Workers’ Rights?: A Review Article;Political Science Quarterly;2024-06-28

2. Forecasting presidential elections: Accuracy of ANES voter intentions;International Journal of Forecasting;2024-04

3. Note from the Editors;Politics & Policy;2023-04

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3