Much analysis of the outcome of the recent to-do has been about comparing the EC totals to the popular vote, or comparing the popular vote to the popular vote of previous elections.
I contend that the popular vote is relatively meaningless statistic in current U.S. elections because candidates don’t campaign to win the popular vote, they campaign to win the EC. Unless you’re willing to argue that the actions of the campaigns are meaningless to the outcome of the election, then the popular vote that results each election is the result of an EC campaign, which is different than what it would be if the candidates campaigned to win the popular vote.
We all know how winning the EC distorts campaigning: It all comes down to swing states. Money that might be spent in California is directed to Ohio; money that could run up popular vote totals in Texas is spent in Florida. EC campaigns, especially lately, hyperfocus campaign resources. In a campaign to win the popular vote, spending would be much more evenly spread out, to different effect.
The popular vote, as it stands, is an artifact of how the EC campaigns get run, and says little, if anything, about how close or distant a victory is.
[Anyone want to speculate on exactly how campaign spending would be different under a nationwide popular vote election, please do.]
The popular vote nationally doesn’t matter at all, but currently, ALL of the 50 united states decide their electors by popular vote, first past the post models. So, it’s important on a per-state basis.
However, it’s important to know that there is no reason why states do it this way. They could, by action of their state legislatures and governors pass a law that said, “Our electors go to the candidate with the snappiest tie.”
The popular vote spread is currently getting close to +3 million for Obama. California accounts for nearly 2 million of that with 70% in*. I wonder how much higher the turnout in California would have been if it hadn’t been a lock in the electoral vote. What would that have done to the popular vote?
*(Although, broken down by county, they all say 100%. I don’t know what’s up with that. Are absentee ballots not included in the county totals or something?)
Didn’t a bunch of states pass laws saying they’d apportion their EC votes according to the national popular vote, once X number of states do the same? How’s that effort coming?
Yes, there have been a few, California among them. It’s just over 50% there. Still needs another 135 or so electoral votes before it goes into effect. And even then, there’s a constitutional question about whether or not it requires approval from congress.
In '08, Barack Obama received one electoral vote from the Omaha area because Nebraska apportions part of its electoral votes based on congressional districts. Maine does this as well, though it has been pretty solid blue for the last six presidential elections. It would be interesting to see how the count would change using that method, but I doubt the larger states would go for that.