{"id":1240,"date":"2011-06-11T14:03:16","date_gmt":"2011-06-11T12:03:16","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.ofcourseimright.com\/?p=1240"},"modified":"2011-06-11T14:03:43","modified_gmt":"2011-06-11T12:03:43","slug":"how-do-electoral-math-differ-from-popular-votes","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ofcourseimright.com\/?p=1240","title":{"rendered":"How do electoral math differ from popular votes?"},"content":{"rendered":"

After the 2000 election one might think that everyone in the world understands how an American president is elected.\u00a0 For those who don’t remember or don’t understand, electors are allocated to each state based on how many congressmen and senators that state has.\u00a0 For example, South Dakota has one congressman and two senators, and is therefore entitled to 3 electoral votes.\u00a0 Therefore, with the total number of congressmen being 435 and there being 100 senators, along with three electors allocated by Constitutional amendment to Washington D.C., there are total of 538 electors.<\/p>\n

So how far off from the popular vote could an electoral vote get?\u00a0 To figure this out, you need to know how many voters there are in each state and the number of electors per state.\u00a0 270 electors can be gotten by winning evenly 50% of the votes in the 11 largest states in the Union.\u00a0 If the loser were to take 50%-1 vote in those states, plus all the votes in the other states, using 2008 voter information, the winner would need only 43 million votes, while the loser could have over 110 million, or\u00a0 71% of all the votes.\u00a0 This is how President Bush won the election 2001 but lost the popular vote.<\/p>\n

The electoral system almost always produces less dramatic results that do not mirror the popular vote.\u00a0 Let’s look at a few percentages:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
>Year<\/th>\nWho<\/th>\nWinner Electoral Votes<\/th>\nLoser Electoral Votes<\/th>\nPercentage Electoral Win\/Loss<\/th>\nWinner Popular Votes<\/th>\nLoser Popular Votes<\/th>\nPercentage Popular Win\/Loss<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n
1904<\/td>\nRoosevelt v. Parker<\/td>\n336<\/td>\n140<\/td>\n70.6%\/39.4<\/td>\n7,630,457<\/td>\n5,083,880<\/td>\n56.4%\/37.6%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1908<\/td>\nTaft v. Bryan<\/td>\n321<\/td>\n162<\/td>\n66%\/34%<\/td>\n7,678,395<\/td>\n6,408,984<\/td>\n51.6%\/43.0%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1912<\/td>\nWilson v. Roosevelt<\/td>\n435<\/td>\n88<\/td>\n82%\/17%<\/td>\n6,296,284<\/td>\n4,122,721<\/td>\n41.8%\/27.4%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1916<\/td>\nWilson v. Hughes<\/td>\n277<\/td>\n254<\/td>\n52%\/48%<\/td>\n9,126,868<\/td>\n8,548,728<\/td>\n49.2%\/46.1%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1920<\/td>\nHarding v. Cox<\/td>\n404<\/td>\n127<\/td>\n76%\/24%<\/td>\n16,144,093<\/td>\n9,139,661<\/td>\n60.3%\/34.1%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1924<\/td>\nCollidge v. Davis\/Follette<\/td>\n382<\/td>\n149<\/td>\n72%\/28%<\/td>\n15,723,789<\/td>\n13,217,948<\/td>\n54%\/45.4<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1928<\/td>\nHoover v. Smith<\/td>\n444<\/td>\n87<\/td>\n84%\/16%<\/td>\n21,427,123<\/td>\n15,015,464<\/td>\n58.2%\/40.8%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1932<\/td>\nRoosevelt v. Hoover<\/td>\n472<\/td>\n59<\/td>\n89%\/11%<\/td>\n22,281,277<\/td>\n15,761,254<\/td>\n57.4%\/39.7%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1936<\/td>\nRoosevelt v. Landon<\/td>\n523<\/td>\n8<\/td>\n98%\/2%<\/td>\n27,752,648<\/td>\n16,681,862<\/td>\n61%\/37%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1940<\/td>\nRoosevelt v. Wilkie<\/td>\n449<\/td>\n82<\/td>\n85%\/15%<\/td>\n27,313,945<\/td>\n22,347,744<\/td>\n54.7%\/44.7%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1944<\/td>\nRoosevelt v. Dewey<\/td>\n432<\/td>\n99<\/td>\n81%\/19%<\/td>\n25,612,916<\/td>\n22,017,929<\/td>\n53.4%\/45.9%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1948<\/td>\nTruman v. Dewey\/Thurmond<\/td>\n303<\/td>\n228<\/td>\n57%\/43%<\/td>\n24,179,347<\/td>\n23,167,222<\/td>\n49.6%\/47.5%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1952<\/td>\nEisenhauer v. Stevenson<\/td>\n442<\/td>\n89<\/td>\n83%\/17%<\/td>\n34,075,529<\/td>\n27,375,090<\/td>\n55%\/44%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1956<\/td>\nEisenhauer v. Stevenson<\/td>\n457<\/td>\n73<\/td>\n86%\/14%<\/td>\n35,579,180<\/td>\n26,028,028<\/td>\n57%\/24%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1960<\/td>\nKennedy v. Nixon<\/td>\n303<\/td>\n219<\/td>\n56.5%\/40.9%<\/td>\n34,220,911<\/td>\n34,108,157<\/td>\n49.7%\/49.6%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1964<\/td>\nJohnson v. Goldwater<\/td>\n486<\/td>\n52<\/td>\n90%\/10%<\/td>\n43,127,041<\/td>\n27,175,754<\/td>\n61%\/39%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1968<\/td>\nNixon v. Humphrey\/Wallace<\/td>\n301<\/td>\n191 + 96<\/td>\n56%\/36%\/18%<\/td>\n31,783,783<\/td>\n41,172,957 (total)<\/td>\n43.4%\/56.2%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1972<\/td>\nNixon v. McGovern<\/td>\n520<\/td>\n17<\/td>\n97%\/3%<\/td>\n47,168,710<\/td>\n29,173,222<\/td>\n61%\/38%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1976<\/td>\nCarter v. Ford<\/td>\n297<\/td>\n240<\/td>\n55%\/45%<\/td>\n40,831,881<\/td>\n39,148,634<\/td>\n50.1%\/48.0%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1980<\/td>\nReagan v. Carter<\/td>\n489<\/td>\n49<\/td>\n91%\/9%<\/td>\n43,903,230<\/td>\n35,480,115<\/td>\n50.7%\/41.0%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1984<\/td>\nReagan v. Mondale<\/td>\n525<\/td>\n13<\/td>\n98%\/2%<\/td>\n54,455,472<\/td>\n37,577,352<\/td>\n59%\/41%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1988<\/td>\nBush v. Dukakis<\/td>\n426<\/td>\n111<\/td>\n79%\/21%<\/td>\n48,886,597<\/td>\n41,809,476<\/td>\n53.4%\/45.7%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1992<\/td>\nClinton v. Bush<\/td>\n370<\/td>\n168<\/td>\n69%\/31%<\/td>\n44,909,806<\/td>\n39,104,550<\/td>\n43%\/37.5%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1996<\/td>\nClinton v. Dole<\/td>\n379<\/td>\n159<\/td>\n70%\/30%<\/td>\n47,401,185<\/td>\n39,197,469<\/td>\n49.2%\/40.7%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2000<\/td>\nBush v. Gore<\/td>\n271<\/td>\n266<\/td>\n50.4%\/49.6%<\/td>\n50,456,002<\/td>\n50,999,897<\/td>\n47.9%\/48.4%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2004<\/td>\nBush v. Kerry<\/td>\n286<\/td>\n251<\/td>\n53%\/47%<\/td>\n62,040,610<\/td>\n59,028,444<\/td>\n50.7%\/48.3%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2008<\/td>\nObama v. McCain<\/td>\n365<\/td>\n173<\/td>\n68%\/32%<\/td>\n69,456,897<\/td>\n59,934,814[<\/td>\n53%\/46%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

In this table, the closest the popular and electoral votes come together is in 1916, although Bush v. Kerry comes close.<\/p>\n

So what do we learn from all of this? I see two key messages:<\/p>\n