Why noncompetitive states are so important for understanding the outcomes of competitive elections: the Electoral College 1868–2016

Cervas, Jonathan; Grofman, Bernard

doi:10.1007/s11127-017-0474-4

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…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). Some authors have claimed that this is an advantage of the current system as it ensures that some swing or heavily contested states will receive more political leverage, while in a nationwide circumscription, it would be more rational to focus just on the most populous states (Shaw, 2006).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some authors have claimed that this is an advantage of the current system as it ensures that some swing or heavily contested states will receive more political leverage, while in a nationwide circumscription, it would be more rational to focus just on the most populous states (Shaw, 2006). Other authors that are more critical of the system, however, would argue that this phenomenon can also be considered a disadvantage, as it provides a bonus to the heavily contested states, at the disadvantage of the states with a solid and predictable majority (Cervas & Grofman, 2017). Having separate contests in every state, furthermore, might also have as an advantage that incidents can be contained to one specific state, without any risk these debates could spill over to the entire country, thus endangering the legitimacy of the electoral process.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Especially 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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Many of these states are not usually considered swing states. However, emerging scholarship suggests non-competitive states, play a more important role in determining Electoral College victories than previously thought (Brams and Kilgour 2017;Cervas and Grofman 2017).…”

Section: Implications and Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“One Difficulty…of a Serious Nature”: The Overlooked Racial Dynamics of the Electoral College

Blake

2019

The Forum

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper explores the racial origins and legacy of the Electoral College through historical and quantitative analyses. At the Constitutional Convention, the Electoral College served the interests of Southern slaveowners by perpetuating the advantage of the Three-Fifths Compromise. Following Reconstruction, Southern states that disenfranchised African Americans received an even larger voice in the Electoral College. Republicans tried to counter these moves by admitting unusually small states into the union. The ironic consequence of this non-racial decision is that, today, these states are heavily White and have citizens with higher levels of racial resentment. A MM-regression analysis of every election from 2000 on indicates the Electoral College has consistently awarded more votes per capita to states with Whiter populations and more racially conservative attitudes. The racially-disparate power exerted by these states makes it more difficult to enact racially-egalitarian policies. This paper adds a new perspective to the normative debate over the Electoral College, which typically focuses on democratic fairness and federalism concerns.

show abstract

Why noncompetitive states are so important for understanding the outcomes of competitive elections: the Electoral College 1868–2016

Cited by 2 publications

References 27 publications

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

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

“One Difficulty…of a Serious Nature”: The Overlooked Racial Dynamics of the Electoral College

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About