“A BI-PARTISAN AFFLICTION”
by Paul R. Hollrah, ©2016
(Nov. 12, 2016) — As New York Yankees catcher Yogi Berra once said, “It’s like déjà vu all over again.” According to latest reports on the outcome of the 2016 General Election, Democratic candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton enjoys a 390,048 vote advantage in the national popular vote, while her Republican opponent, New York real estate mogul Donald Trump, enjoys a decisive 306 to 232 majority in the U.S. Electoral College. It is reminiscent of the 2000 presidential election in which Democrat Al Gore enjoyed a 543,900 vote plurality in the national popular vote, while Governor George Bush won a slim 271 to 266 vote majority in the Electoral College. In that election, out of a total national popular vote of 101,455,900, Gore won a razor-thin popular vote majority… 50,999,900 votes (50.26%) to Bush’s 50,456,000 (49.74%).
In the present case, out of 120,527,246 votes cast, Democrat Hillary Clinton won an even thinner popular vote plurality: 60,458,647 (50.10%) to 60,068,599 (49.08%) for Donald Trump. In the 2000 General Election, a switch of just 271,951 votes would have given Bush a narrow popular vote victory, along with a 271 to 266 vote victory in the Electoral College. In 2016, a switch of just one vote out of each 618 votes cast would have given Donald Trump a razor-thin plurality in the national popular vote and a comfortable 306 to 232 vote victory in the Electoral College.
The 2000 Bush-Cheney victory in the Electoral College caused liberals, Democrats, and some moderate Republicans to search for ways in which to bypass the Electoral College. In response, and with the active support of Republicans such as former Illinois congressman John Anderson, they’ve created an organization called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC).
The NPVIC actively seeks support among the legislatures of the various states in support of a rule requiring that all of their state’s electoral votes be cast for the candidates for president and vice president who receive a majority of the national popular vote… regardless of the popular vote count in each of those states. The national popular vote victory by the Democrats in 2016 is certain to reinvigorate the NPVIC effort, but do they really know what they’re doing? Are they aware of the potential unintended consequences if they are successful?
California’s adoption of the NPVIC rule on August 8, 2011 brought 131 of the needed 270 electoral votes under the popular vote umbrella. If and when states representing at least 270 electoral votes have joined the Compact, then and only then will those states be able to eliminate any possibility of ever again electing a president and vice president with less than a majority of the national popular vote.
If the supporters of the NPVIC would do their homework, they would understand that, had the NPVIC rule been in effect in 2000, in every blue state in the nation, and if Bush-Cheney had been able to attract just one additional vote out of every 373 votes cast… to eke out a narrow victory in the national popular vote… the states of the NPVIC would have been required to automatically cast all 270 of their electoral votes for George Bush and Dick Cheney, in spite of the fact that 21 of the 22 states in the Compact would have cast a majority of their popular votes for Al Gore and Joe Lieberman.
Combined with the 267 electoral votes that Bush-Cheney won in the 29 non-NPVIC states, the Electoral College vote would have been a unanimous 537-0 victory for Bush-Cheney. In other words, the proponents of the national popular vote would have insured a unanimous Electoral College vote for Bush-Cheney, a result that the Framers never envisioned and the exact opposite of what the NPVIC supporters hoped to accomplish. The same is true for the 2016 results.
If supporters of the NPVIC are truly interested in Electoral College reform that is more democratic and closer to the will of the people than the winner-take-all system now utilized by 48 states and Washington, DC, they might want to consider adopting the allocation system now used by the states of Maine and Nebraska. Under that system, the winner of the statewide popular vote receives both of the state’s two at-large electoral votes. The remaining electoral votes are allocated based on the winner of the popular vote in each of the state’s congressional districts. A comparative analysis of the 2016 Electoral College outcome shows the following:
Winner, Electoral Votes
Electoral Popular Winner-Take-All Maine-Nebraska Difference
State Votes Vote HRC DJT HRC DJT HRC DJT
Alabama 9 Trump 0 9 1 8 +1 -1
Alaska 3 Trump 0 3 0 3 0 0
Arizona 11 Trump 0 11 4 7 +4 -4
Arkansas 6 Trump 0 6 0 6 0 0
California 55 Clinton 55 0 41 14 -14 +14
Colorado 9 Clinton 9 0 5 4 -4 +4
Connecticut 7 Clinton 7 0 7 0 0 0
Delaware 3 Clinton 3 0 3 0 0 0
D.C. 3 Clinton. 3 0 3 0 0 0
Florida 29 Trump 0 29 11 18 +11 -11
Georgia 16 Trump 0 16 4 12 +4 -4
Hawaii 4 Clinton 4 0 4 0 0 0
Idaho 4 Trump 0 4 0 4 0 0
Illinois 20 Clinton 20 0 12 8 -8 +8
Indiana 11 Trump 0 11 1 10 +1 -1
Iowa 6 Trump 0 6 1 5 +1 -1
Kansas 6 Trump 0 6 1 5 +1 -1
Kentucky 8 Trump 0 8 1 7 +1 -1
Louisiana 8 Trump 0 8 1 7 +1 -1
Maine 4 Clinton 3 1 3 1 0 0
Maryland 10 Clinton 10 0 9 1 -1 +1
Massachusetts 11 Clinton 11 0 11 0 0 0
Michigan 16 Trump 0 16 5 11 +5 -5
Minnesota 10 Clinton 10 0 7 3 -3 +3
Mississippi 6 Trump 0 6 1 5 +1 -1
Missouri 10 Trump 0 10 2 8 +2 -2
Montana 3 Trump 0 3 0 3 0 0
Nebraska 5 Trump 0 5 0 5 0 0
Nevada 6 Clinton 6 0 5 1 -1 +1
New Hampshire 4 Clinton 4 0 4 0 0 0
New Jersey 14 Clinton 14 0 9 5 -5 +5
New Mexico 5 Clinton 5 0 4 1 -1 +1
New York 29 Clinton 29 0 20 9 -9 +9
North Carolina 15 Trump 0 15 3 12 +3 -3
North Dakota 3 Trump 0 3 0 3 0 0
Ohio 18 Trump 0 18 4 14 +4 -4
Oklahoma 7 Trump 0 7 0 7 0 0
Oregon 7 Clinton 7 0 6 1 -1 +1
Pennsylvania 20 Trump 0 20 5 15 +5 -15
Rhode Island 4 Clinton 4 0 4 0 0 0
South Carolina 9 Trump 0 9 1 8 +1 -1
South Dakota 3 Trump 0 3 0 3 0 0
Tennessee 11 Trump 0 11 2 9 +2 -2
Texas 38 Trump 0 38 11 27 +11 -11
Utah 6 Trump 0 6 0 6 0 0
Vermont 3 Clinton 3 0 3 0 0 0
Virginia 13 Clinton 13 0 7 6 -7 +7
Washington 12 Clinton 12 0 8 4 -4 +4
West Virginia 5 Trump 0 5 0 5 0 0
Wisconsin 10 Trump 0 10 3 7 +3 -3
Wyoming 3 Trump 0 3 0 3 0 0
232 306 237 301
Under the winner-take-all system in 2016, essentially all of the campaigning took place in twelve states: Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin. However, had all states used the Maine-Nebraska system, that intensity would have expanded to six additional states: California, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, Texas, and Washington… four of the six among our most populous states.
Under the Maine-Nebraska system, Clinton would have gained electoral votes in nineteen states and lost votes in twelve states. Under the winner-take-all system, Trump shut out Clinton in thirty states, while Clinton shut out Trump in nineteen states and the District of Columbia. Under the Maine-Nebraska system, Trump would have shut out Clinton in only eleven states, while Clinton would have shut out Trump in just eight states.
But the most telling aspect of the analysis is provided by a comparison with the U.S. map on which each of the 3,100 counties are colored in either red or blue. When viewing the map one might question how the map can be almost entirely red, while the distribution of the popular vote and the electoral vote, state by state, is relatively equal. The answer lies in the occasional splotch of blue on the county-by-county map, indicating the popular vote in major population centers where the Democratic vote is often greater than 90 percent, and the rural and suburban areas where the partisan vote split is relatively equal… generally within the 40-60 percent range.
Electoral College critics would be well advised to do a bit more research into what could be the unintended consequence of scuttling the Electoral College in favor of the national popular vote. While it is understandable that they would see unfairness in recent presidential elections… 2000 and 2016… in which the candidates receiving a plurality of the national popular vote lost the election in the Electoral College, they will be far more upset if, after convincing state legislatures to adopt the NPVIC formula, they find that their efforts have produced unanimous 538 to 0 votes in the Electoral College for candidates who came in second in the popular vote. Clearly, electoral stupidity is a bi-partisan affliction.
———————–
Paul R. Hollrah is a retired government relations executive and a two-time member of the U.S. Electoral College. He currently lives and writes among the hills and lakes of northeast Oklahoma’s Green Country.
These idiots never read the Constitution, especially the 10th Amendment.