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

Abstract

Objectives. We offer a typology of possible reforms to the Electoral College (EC) in terms of changes to its two most important structural features: seat allocations that are not directly proportional to population and winner-take-all outcomes at the state level. This typology allows us to classify four major variants of "reform" to the present EC in a parsimonious fashion. Many of the proposals we consider have been suggested by well-known figures, some debated in Congress, and they include what we view as most likely to be taken seriously. We evaluate these proposals solely in terms of one simple criterion: "Would they be expected to reduce the likelihood of inversions between EC and popular vote outcomes?" Methods. We answer this question by looking at the data on actual presidential election outcomes at the state level over the entire period 1868-2016, and at the congressional-district level over the period 1956-2016. We consider the implications for presidential outcomes of these different alternative mechanisms, in comparison to the actual electoral outcome and the popular vote outcome. In addition, we consider the implications of a proposal to increase the size of the U.S. House (Ladewig and Jasinski, 2008). Results. Our results show that inversions from the popular vote happen under all proposed alternatives at nearly the same rate as under the current EC rules, with some proposals actually making inversions more frequent. Conclusions. The major difference between the present EC rule and alternative rules is not in frequency of inversions, but is in which particular years the inversions occur. As for the proposal to increase the size of the House, we show that any realistic increase in House size would have made no difference for the 2016 outcome."The Electoral College is a disaster for democracy."

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

“…Nevertheless, even the strongest defender of the Electoral College will have to acknowledge that selecting the wrong winner is the worst possible outcome, eroding the legitimacy and the democratic support for the institution. However, as Cervas and Grofman (2019) make clear in their review, all current proposals are difficult to implement and still entail the risk that a candidate who did not win the popular vote would be elected as president of the United States. Further, the current system provides very specific incentives to presidential candidates and some states are especially attached to this incentive structure (Cervas & Grofman, 2017).…”

Legal, Political Science, and Economics Approaches to Measuring Malapportionment: The U.S. House, Senate, and Electoral College 1790–2010

“…In addition to the partisan distribution of voters across states, turnout differences among the states may also operate to bias outcome to create a discrepancy between the popular vote winner and the EC winner. These election‐specific effects can be substantial enough to generate a partisan bias that can lead to a divergence between popular vote majority winner and the winner of the EC vote (Cervas and Grofman, 2019). Calculations of this bias suggest that it has sometimes favored Democrats and sometimes favored Republicans, but with a large pro‐Republican bias in 2016 (Grofman, Koetzle, and Brunell, 1997; Pattie and Johnston, 2014; Zingher, 2016).…”

Why Donald Trump Should Be a Fervent Advocate of Using Ranked-Choice Voting in 2024

“…However, even if minor-party candidates did not change the presidential election outcome in 2016 Kopko 2016, 2021), can we state the same for 2020? Unlike the election in 2016, the 2020 election did not exhibit an Electoral College inversion of the popular vote (Cervas and Grofman 2019). Nonetheless, despite Joe Biden having won the national popular vote by more than seven million votes, the outcome was very close in many states-as it was in 2016-including the pivotal states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.…”