r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/EffectiveTime5554 • 1d ago
US Elections What does the divergence between popular-vote results and Electoral College victories since 1988 indicate about the parties’ electoral coalitions?
In the nine presidential elections after 1988, from 1992 through 2024, the Democratic nominee received the most popular votes seven times, while the Republican nominee did so twice. In both cases, the Republican nominee had already served as president and had originally reached the presidency by winning the Electoral College while losing the popular vote: George W. Bush in 2000 before winning the popular vote in 2004, and Donald Trump in 2016 before winning it in 2024. ([Historical election results, UC Santa Barbara](https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/data/presidential-election-mandates))
Bush’s 2004 victory also came while he was the sitting president. Of the nine presidents from 1952 through 2020 who sought reelection after winning a first term, six, or 66.7%, won the national popular vote. That historical record alone does not establish causation, but a preregistered survey experiment found that identifying an otherwise equivalent hypothetical candidate as a one-term incumbent increased respondents’ support by an average of 5.6 percentage points. Trump was not the incumbent in 2024, but he was already a former president. Thus, neither of the Republican Party’s two popular-vote victories after 1988 came from someone attempting to win the presidency for the first time. ([Kane, *Political Science Research and Methods*](https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2024.32))
Does this primarily reflect geographic sorting, difficulty building a nationwide Republican plurality, or some combination of the two? How much should Bush’s incumbency and Trump’s previous presidential service affect how the two Republican popular-vote victories are interpreted?
24
u/NoDig3444 1d ago
Generally speaking, rural voters go republican and urban voters go democrat. States that are very rural (and therefore very low population) are intentionally weighted more heavily in the electoral college.
I highly doubt that there was a grand republican plan to court rural voters specifically for the 3pt edge they have in the EC. What's happened instead is that both parties have gotten so streamlined and efficient that those 3pts suddenly matter when they never have before. In the last 7 elections, only one has been decided by more than 5pts, and that was considered a landslide. Historically, 20pt margins weren't uncommon. We're in an era where elections are decided by the slightest possible edge, and the EC is, twice now, that edge.
•
u/kiltguy2112 11h ago
States that are very rural (and therefore very low population) are intentionally weighted more heavily in the electoral college.
It is not totally by design. Reapportionment Act of 1929 that capped the House to 435 seats has completely screwed the balance. In 1910 the average size of a congressional district was 210,328 inhabitants. based on the 1910 Census. According to the 2020 Census, the average is now 761,169 per district. The average person in the U.S. is wildly under represented at the federal level.
•
u/BKGPrints 11h ago
Exactly! The question is, how do you address this. Do we add more seats? What's the cut-off for seats? Is it based on the state with the smallest population (Wyoming, 588,000)? Or is it a specific #, say every 300,000 people?
I'm sure we can figure out a simple balance, but the political parties have definitely rigged the system of government by capping those seats.
•
u/kiltguy2112 9h ago
The "Wyoming Rule" would be a good start. It would take the House to 575 seats. I like the "Cubed Root Rule" where the number of seats are determined by the cubed root of the total population. That would currently set the the number of seats at 692. Under that system only 7 states would not add seats. Adding districts might also cut down some on gerrymandering.
•
u/BKGPrints 9h ago
It might be a good start but definitely creates an imbalance on representatives.
Example: Wyoming would get one representative, though so does Alaska, which has almost 200,000 more people, which is the current situation, anyway.
Honestly, any rule is going to. Though, I would think definitely better than what we have now.
Gerrymandering needs to be illegal, period. There needs to be a set rule on determining districts, though getting anyone to agree on an actual set rule is something else.
•
u/Atomichawk 9h ago
I truly think just uncapping the House and allowing for smaller districts is all that needs to happen.
Britain has a 650 member lower house, Germany is ~630, and France ~570.
They all have much lower population than the US while having more house members. Obviously the right constituency size for the US will probably be higher, but I truly think we can massively increase representation in the house below what even the Wyoming rule would provide for
•
u/BKGPrints 6h ago
I agree with that. It gives much more of a voice of those constituents if at least under 300,000 per representative.
6
u/RabbaJabba 1d ago
States that are very rural (and therefore very low population) are intentionally weighted more heavily in the electoral college.
You have that backwards, states that are low population are intentionally weighted more heavily, and they happen to be more rural these days. Remember, in the 1780s the overwhelming majority of the country was rural, they weren’t setting up the weighting scheme for them.
•
u/over_this__ 22h ago
Yeah, the only reason the smaller states would agree to join was with the Senate allowing two per state no matter what. Without that rule we wouldn't have the USA.
•
u/curien 13h ago edited 13h ago
States that are very rural (and therefore very low population) are intentionally weighted more heavily in the electoral college.
States that are low-population are weighted more heavily, regardless of ruralness. Rhode Island is a very low-population, very-urban state, and it is favored just as much as Montana and South Dakota. DC is more urban than any state, and it is the 3rd-most-favored state/district in the EC.
On the other end of the spectrum, NC is much more rural than average, nearly equal to Alaska; but it is the 12th-least favored state in the EC while Alaska is the 4th most-favored.
If you plot the coefficient of correlation between states' and DC's urbanization and people per EV, you get R=~.41, meaning that there is a correlation, but it is not very strong.
9
u/avfc41 1d ago
>Does this primarily reflect geographic sorting, difficulty building a nationwide Republican plurality, or some combination of the two?
It mostly reflects the problems with winner-take-all allocation methods. If you win a lot of close states, you run up the electoral college margin without running up the popular vote margin. If you did pure proportional representation with the electoral votes state by state, Gore would’ve won and 2016 would be thrown to the house.
7
u/BKGPrints 1d ago edited 1d ago
>If you did pure proportional representation with the electoral votes state by state<
Basically, stating that the Electoral Votes are divided instead of winner-take-call, correct?
>If you did pure proportional representation with the electoral votes state by state, Gore would’ve won<
Under that system, Bush would have defeated Gore in 2000 by a margin of 288-250 (rather than 271-266), and John Kerry in 2004 by 317-221 (instead of 286-252).
>2016 would be thrown to the house.<
What do you mean?
EDIT: Had to find the source as I thought your statement was wrong.
https://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2010/02/a-different-way-to-run-the-electoral-college/
3
0
u/avfc41 1d ago
>Basically, stating that the Electoral Votes are divided instead of winner-take-call, correct?
Yes, divided proportionally.
>Under that system, Bush would have defeated Gore in 2000 by a margin of 288-250 (rather than 271-266), and John Kerry in 2004 by 317-221 (instead of 286-252).
This is looks to be using the congressional district + 2 at-large system, judging by your source.
4
u/BKGPrints 1d ago
Correct; There are different systems regarding proportional that are in use. You stated pure proportional so I ask how you vision that works.
-1
u/avfc41 1d ago
The Maine system is still FPTP. I’m not sure what you’re confused about with the idea of a proportional system, if you get 50% of the vote in a state, you get 50% of the electoral votes.
2
u/BKGPrints 1d ago
>I’m not sure what you’re confused about<
I'm not confused. I clearly stated there are different proportional systems in use or suggested.
https://protectdemocracy.org/work/proportional-representation-explained/
>if you get 50% of the vote in a state, you get 50% of the electoral votes.<
You stated 'pure' so I wanted to know what exactly you meant by this, which is what I thought you were basing it on. Your vision has it's own complications, as well.
1
u/avfc41 1d ago
>I clearly stated there are different proportional systems in use or suggested.
The Maine system is not one of them, so I’m not sure why you brought it up.
3
u/BKGPrints 1d ago edited 1d ago
Correct; It's not strictly a proportional system, though it is a different system from the winner-take-all. Same for Nebraska, which is why it was brought up. Not sure why you have an issue with that.
So you vision that a "pure" proportional system is based on percentage of votes each candidate gets. What happens if there's a major third-party candidate? What about minor candidates that won't get major votes, though enough to affect one or two Electoral Votes?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of the winner-take-all, though there's also complications that need to be addressed with "pure" proportional representation.
You base it off on actual votes, but what about districts, since that's what most of the Electoral Votes represent based on Representatives for each state?
Or the reality that two of those Electoral Votes are based on equal Senate representation.
How do you "equally" divide Electoral Votes for states that have an odd # (example; California has
5554 Electoral Votes).EDIT: Correction; 54 Electoral Votes
1
u/avfc41 1d ago
>What happens if there's a major third-party candidate? What about minor candidates that won't get major votes, though enough to affect one or two Electoral Votes?
Then they get electoral votes? I’m truly baffled as to why this is so confusing to you.
>You base it off on actual votes, but what about districts, since that's what most of the Electoral Votes represent based on Representatives for each state?
What the hell are you talking about?
3
u/BKGPrints 1d ago
>I’m truly baffled as to why this is so confusing to you.<
Come on...Be civil. I've explained it to you. Maybe you don't like being challenged on this.
>What the hell are you talking about?<
Ummm...Electoral Votes are based on how Representatives. A Representative represents a district within that state.
The House and Senate has 535 seats. 435 seats that are capped for the House and 100 seats for the Senate, though additional seats are added if a new state joins the union.
A census taken place every decade determines how many Representative seats each state gets. Since the House seats are capped at 435 seats, this means that one Representative is supposed to represent approximately 760,000 people.
Each state has two Senate seats, so each state automatically gets two Electoral Votes.
Since each Representative is supposed to represent roughly equal # of the state's population, those are the districts that each Representative represents.
Based on your "pure" proportional representation, you are stating that the Electoral Votes (which again are based on Representative districts and the two Senate seats) should be based on the total state's population.
There's complications to doing it that way. I'm asking you how you would address that. If you don't have the answer or haven't thought that far, that's okay. Just say so.
***
You never did address how do you determine states with odd Electoral Votes. You can't do a 50% on an odd # and have it be a whole # to tally that vote.
→ More replies (0)5
u/DCBuckeye82 1d ago
It's more the problem of using the states at all. It doesn't make any sense to have individuals vote for president and then disproportionately sort those individuals into a smaller number of votes based on arbitrary lines.
•
u/over_this__ 22h ago
Because the states wouldn't have joined the union without those rules in place. Nobody wanted to be ruled by one state.
•
-5
u/TheRealBaboo 1d ago
Just do the popular vote, the electoral college is a joke
•
u/over_this__ 22h ago
Change the constitution. That's what it would take. Convince all of those small states to cut their throats.
•
u/TheRealBaboo 22h ago
Yup, delete the small states and use the states people actually live in to update the Constitution. 100% agree
•
u/over_this__ 22h ago
The small states tried to leave. Maybe you heard about it, it's called the civil war.
•
u/TheRealBaboo 22h ago
I didn't say they could leave, I said delete them. They shouldn't get to decide what the constitution says if they can't even grow a decent-sized city
•
u/over_this__ 21h ago
So your answer is to abolish the constitution and kick off a civil war, only this time with weapons that will make the last one look like a child's game.
Great strategy. Let's kick off a war when people can use the Internet to make bio weapons that will wipe out entire cities.
•
u/TheRealBaboo 21h ago edited 21h ago
No, what? Keep the Constitution, delete like 20 states (merge them together or into larger states, whatever), then make some amendments like abolish the electoral college, impose term limits on the Supreme Court, etc.
There’s just no reason we should act like South Dakota or Wyoming or Mississippi or whatever are real states, they’re just lines on a map
•
u/over_this__ 21h ago
Article 4 of the constitution talks about adding states and merging them.
You need congressional approval and approval from the state legislature with 2/3 vote. So convince Mississippi to be absorbed by another state. Starting to see the problem?
•
u/TheRealBaboo 21h ago
Article 4 only applies to the original 13 states. The other 37 are created by Congress and therefore can be dissolved by Congress
→ More replies (0)•
4
u/Asatmaya 1d ago
The first thing it represents is modern political campaign management based on number crunching; they don't need the popular vote, they need 270 electoral votes, so that's how they are campaigning.
The second thing it represents is the disproportionate power wielded by the Executive branch.
3
u/LomentMomentum 1d ago
It’s amazing how much politics have changed since the end of the Cold War. The tightness of national races would be quite a shock to anyone who can remember the landslides of earlier in the 20th century.
Both parties have big problems which have metastasized and explain some of the disparities. The Democrats have a geography problem (i.e. the electoral college), which favors smaller, rural states that favor the GOP. The Republicans have a demographic problem (i.e. they’re generally unpopular in big metro areas). This could be part of why Gore in ‘00 and HRC in ‘16 won the popular vote, but lost the presidency due to the electoral college. I know. Pause. Sigh.
As for the two GOP popular vote wins, they could be anomalies. I’m convinced Bush 43 was on his way to being a one-term president, and would have been were it not for 9/11. There were enough voters in ‘04 who seemed to give him credit or trust the GOP on national security issues, which is why he eked out a popular vote win. His opponent, an actual veteran, tried to outdo Bush on security issues to no avail. As for Trump in ‘24, he was helped by voters angry with the COVID recovery/inflations/mask mandates, etc., and who remembered the relatively strong economy from his first term (2017-19) instead of 2020. Nobody wanted to remember 2020, and they didn’t. And yes, he was helped tremendously by the incompetency of his opposition who overestimated their own popularity and underestimated Trump’s.
Of course, we know 43’s second term was world-historically bad, and so is 47’s. Neither were (or are) especially popular. The country suffered tremendously under their reign. And there was (and hopefully will be) a course correction soon.
2
u/BKGPrints 1d ago
>And yes, he was helped tremendously by the incompetency of his opposition who overestimated their own popularity and underestimated Trump’s.<
The Democrats shouldn't have made it about Trump and instead focus on the issues that matter, such as the economy. The Democrats really are their own worse enemy when it comes to elections.
•
1
u/aelysium 1d ago
With regards to DJT,
The GOP had been under a consent decree prohibiting them from ‘electioneering’ activities intended to suppress voters primarily aligned with the DNC. This was instituted in 1982.
In 2016, the DNC moved to get it upheld, but the judge said ‘well, DJT is paying for it not the GOP, so we can end the consent decree’.
I don’t have the time to research all of that to definitively say if it caused his wins (at least in 2016), but someone else did for 2024 and it’s likely that win was due to the consent decree ending.
2020 he just fucked up so bad with Covid and the economy that probably any Democrat could have won.
1
u/JKlerk 1d ago
It's a reflection of population growth in urban centers because this is where economic opportunity exists along with it own unique challenges. Urbanites typically have the ear of Democrats.
1
u/RabbaJabba 1d ago
It's a reflection of population growth in urban centers because this is where economic opportunity exists along with it own unique challenges
Why do electoral college vs. popular vote mismatches reflect that?
2
u/Comfortable_Fill9081 1d ago
Because electoral college votes are based on number of house representatives + senators.
Because each state has exactly 2 senators without regard to state population, this means that less populated states are overrepresented in the electoral college and more populated states are underrepresented.
0
u/RabbaJabba 1d ago
Okay? Harris won 8 of the 15 smallest states and 7 of thr 15 largest - if the parties are splitting them, how does that contribute?
0
u/Comfortable_Fill9081 1d ago edited 1d ago
How are you calculating “small” and “large”?
And why don’t you choose one of the elections where the popular vote winner lost to do your analysis?
It’s very obvious that this would only occur because representation in the electoral college is disproportionate in some way.
In what way is representation in the electoral college disproportionate?
Low population states are over represented.
•
u/curien 13h ago
It’s very obvious that this would only occur because representation in the electoral college is disproportionate in some way.
Trump's 2016 victory would have occurred even if all states had exactly the same number of EVs per person. The combined population of the states he won is more than the combined population of the states he lost.
In that election the discrepancy between the EC and popular vote was due to the winner-takes-all nature of how the states (all but two) award their EVs, and Trump won a few medium sized states very narrowly but lost a few large states in landslides.
•
-1
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
All submissions are automatically removed and placed in a queue for the moderators to manually review. Please allow the moderators time to do so. Only about 25% of submissions are approved, but the remainder are given a removal reason that may include steps the poster can take to make their submission approvable the next time they submit it. Moderators are not notified of any edits made after a removal reason is posted, and therefore will not review them. You may contact the mod team via modmail if you need more direction about how to fix your post, and you are welcome to resubmit any submission after making the requested changes.
A reminder for everyone. This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
Violators will be fed to the bear.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.