The Connecticut Effect: The Great Compromise of 1787 and the History of Small State Impact on Electoral College Outcomes

Estes, Todd

doi:10.1111/j.1540-6563.2011.00291.x

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

B Further Discussion Of the Related Literature1

Citation Types

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Year Published

2019

2023

Publication Types

Select...

Article2

Relationship

Self Cite0

Independent2

Authors

Journals

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In one striking example of the richness of the EC literature, political scientists and historians have even debated which elections should count as an inversion-a debate that is possible because of the complexity, and therefore ambiguity, of the implementation of the EC in practice across states, parties, and centuries (Kallina, 1985;Rakove, 2004;Estes, 2011). Gaines (2001), for example, argues that the 1960 election should be counted as an inversion because over 175,000 popular votes in Alabama (a number in excess of Kennedy's national popular vote margin of victory) were for Democratic electors who were opposed to Kennedy.…”

Section: B Further Discussion Of the Related Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Inversions in US Presidential Elections: 1836-2016

Geruso¹,

Spears²,

Talesara³

2019

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: B Further Discussion Of the Related Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Inversions in US Presidential Elections: 1836-2016

Geruso¹,

Spears²,

Talesara³

2019

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Does Malapportionment Favor the Republican Party?

Tamas

2023

The Forum

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines electoral bias within US politics, including as it relates to malapportionment in the US Senate and Electoral College. Specifically, with the Republican Party gaining significant support in rural areas and the Democratic Party becoming concentrated in urban areas, there is concern that the US electoral system increases the probability that the Republican Party will win a much higher percent of Senate seats than its public support and repeatedly win the presidency without having won a plurality of votes, as was the case in 2000 and 2016. I explore this concern using a relatively new measure called the Directional Proportionality Index (DPIx). Applying it to the Electoral College since 1872 and the US Senate since 1918, this paper demonstrates that while there does exist a small pro-Republican bias in the Electoral College owing to malapportionment, the pro-Republican malapportionment bias in Senate races is far more substantial. However, as long as the percent vote for Democratic and Republican presidential candidates remains close due to partisan polarization, this small bias in the Electoral College is likely enough to lead to more cases whereby the Republican Party loses the popular vote but still wins control over the White House and the United States Congress.

show abstract

The Connecticut Effect: The Great Compromise of 1787 and the History of Small State Impact on Electoral College Outcomes

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

Inversions in US Presidential Elections: 1836-2016

Inversions in US Presidential Elections: 1836-2016

Does Malapportionment Favor the Republican Party?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About