Looking at current projections and battleground states, I don’t understand why the conventional wisdom is that the electoral college math favors Democrats. I seem to remember reading some articles after the 2012 election about how it the Democrats were virtually guaranteed a lock on the presidency for a generation. Looking at 538’s forecast, it looks like tonight Nate Silver has Trump favored to win 260 electoral votes (if I’m doing my math right). Clinton could afford to lose NH, or NV, but not both, and not any other state she’s currently favored in. That seems like a very tenuous position for her.
Look at the last couple of election results. Minus some swing states the math does indeed favor the Democrat. Even if she loses Florida, Ohio, Colorado, and Iowa Hillary should still win with 270 electoral votes.
One key reason for this is Virginia. Once a solid Republican state for POTUS elections it has gone Dem the last 2 and has been polling Dem this entire election cycle. 13 electoral votes is a fairly significant loss.
The problem is that states like PA, WI, and MI, which indeed are went Democrat 6/6 previous elections aren’t really safe / strong Dem states. They’re barely Dem states that with a bit of luck have fallen into the Dem column every single recent election. I think people look at this image and equate “Voted Dem 6X” with “Safe D states”, but that’s not really accurate. In 2004, PA was 51% to 48.5%, WI was 49.7% to 49.3%, and MI was 51.2% to 47.8%. And right now Nate Silver has those three as Trump’s next-likeliest pick-ups after NV, CO, and NH.
I would have agreed with Wisconsin in 2004 after 2 razor close elections (both of which the Democrat carried the state, BTW) but Obama took Wisconsin pretty strongly the last 2 elections, and it’s been polling Democrat since.
Your OP asks why conventional wisdom favors the Democrat in the electoral college. You’ve been given good evidence as to why it does. I don’t like it, but the fact is the Democrats at this time in history do have an electoral advantage.
History: Democrats won the last two elections, with fairly comfortable electoral margins (emphasis on electoral).
Demographics: Republicans have been polling poorly with demographic groups that are growing in number while their stronghold has been falling.
What the analysis of 2013-2016 has failed to consider is that we could have a situation in which a candidate draws strongly with and, for lack of a better word, somewhat unites the demographic group that, while in decline, still holds a strong majority of the vote. It also failed to consider that the democrats nominated a candidate who has less appeal to these demogrpahic groups that have been growing but are still a minority.
If Trump and the Republicans win power this year, there will most likely be an all-out war on the minority vote and we will see vote suppression efforts not seen since before 1964.
OP’s question is unclear: The electoral college majority almost always ends up the same way as the popular vote majority. Is OP asking why the Democrats are, allegedly, favored over the GOP in the popular vote for the White House? I think the answer to that is based largely on demographics: the GOP has highest support among whites and among the Boomer and pre-Boomer generations, all of which are declining in numbers. (However, the conclusion by now may appear over-hasty. :eek: )
If the popular vote is extremely close, it’s quite possible the electoral vote will go opposite to whomever won the popular vote by a whisker. Whether this quirk would favor (D) or ® might well depend on which states have bad weather on November 8. I don’t know whether Nate Silver is quoting odds for “D wins pop-vote, loses EC” and “R wins pop-vote, loses EC” but I don’t think such quirks are of major interest.
It is true that campaigns should focus on tipping states. This just introduces more uninteresting skew into the pop vote numbers since voters in non-tipping states may stay home.
Silver has indeed been keeping track of those very odds. At this point, I think it’s around 6 percent that Trump wins EV but loses PV, but only around 1 percent that Clinton achieves these things.
So, in terms of the effects of the existence of the electoral system (versus straight-up popular vote, as in most countries), this time around there is evidence that:
It’s more likely to have a serious effect (that is, PV/EV disagreement) this time l, compared to previous elections (7 percent is really high!)
This time around, at least, it’s much more likely to favor the Republican, if it happens at all.
This is because Clinton has a lot of “wasted” popular votes in states like California. Or, to put it another way, less-educated white males happen to be relatively well distributed among states, especially swing states.
I should add that Clinton is likely to get “excessive” votes (affecting PV count but not EV count) not just in states that are safe for her, but also in several states that are safe for Trump. For example, she will probably receive more votes in Utah than most previous Republicans have, but of course she’ll lose the state anyway.
(Trump will receive “wasted” votes in various states as well, of course, just not as many as Clinton.)
The margins in electoral votes were perfectly consistent with the margins in popular vote. There is nothing at all about the electoral map to suggest that it heavily favours Democrats. Obama’s electoral vote margins were consistent with his popular vote margins. In 2008 he won the popular vote by 7.2 points; his 365-173 electoral vote margin is to be expected given that swing.
By way of comparison, in 1988, Bush defeated Dukakis by 7.8 points and won the Electoral College by a much wider margin, 426-111 (Lloyd Bentsen received a faithless elector vote.)
In 1980, Reagan won by slightly more, 9.7%, but that translates to a 489-49 electoral vote count.
If Trump wins the popular vote, it is very likely he’ll win the electoral vote. If he doesn’t, he probably won’t, and by “probably” I mean like it’s 95% likely. (I see 538 says 94%. Okay.)
It’s simply not true the Democrats have an advantage ***that is particular to the electoral college ***as distinct from popular vote. They do not.
From a purely mathematical standpoint the Republicans have an electoral college advantage, in that the EC is based on congresspeople plus senators, which means a party whose strength is in smaller states has an advantage.
Of course, this is just one aspect and can be swamped by the issue of differing margins of victory in different states that has been of greater focus. But if the popular vote is 50-50 and the margins of victory are the same in all states, then the Republicans have the edge in the electoral college.
I’m not sure if you were being facetious or not. But in case you weren’t, I was intending to illustrate the concept, not to focus on that particular scenario. The concept itself has broader application.
Among all 51 states, 18 are Blue (if we include MI), 23 Red, 10 Swing.
There are 13 states (incl. D.C.) with 4 or fewer evs. 6 are solid Red, 6 are solid Blue, 1 (NH) is a swing state.
Among the 17 smallish medium states (5-9 ev), 11 are Red, 3 Blue, 3 Swing.
Another way to view the Elec-vote vs Pop-vote is by counting “wasted votes.”
The GOP wastes about 1 million votes in Texas. The only other GOP major wastages are in Utah, Tennessee, Alabama, Oklahoma.
The Democrats waste over 3 million votes in California, 2 million in New York, almost a million in Illinois, and also have major wastages in Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, Washington.
Since the presidential vote has not tracked the congressional vote in recent elections, the concept does not have *any *application. Your general is as bad as your particular.
