Electoral College

By Rob Richie
Published October 29th 1999
To the Wall Street Journal editors,

You contend that the fact that the U.S. Presidency is elected through the Electoral College rather than direct election "requires any third party candidate to approach a majority of the popular vote" (editorial, October 27, 1999).

Hogwash! More than a third of presidential elections have been won with a mere plurality of the popular vote, including four winners with less than 44% of the vote. Abraham Lincoln won a convincing Electoral College victory as a third party candidate with less than 40% of the vote. Bill Clinton won more than two-thirds of the electoral college vote in 1992 with only 43% of the vote.

The fact remains that the Presidency is the only office of any significance in the nation where a candidate can win with fewer votes than an opponent. With a steady rise in minor party and independent candidacies at a state and federal level, it's time once again to consider replacing the Electoral College with direct election. To assure a real majority winner, a much better solution than a simple plurality vote or keeping the Electoral College would be to adopt instant runoff voting, a majority vote system used to elect the Australian parliament, president of Ireland and, next year, mayor of London.

LIST OF PLURALITY PRESIDENTS

Year     Winner      Popular Vote     Electoral Vote

1996    Clinton     49.2%     70%
1992     Clinton     43.0%     69%
1968     Nixon     43.4%     56%
1960     Kennedy     49.7%     56%
1948     Truman     49.5%     57%
1916     Wilson     49.3%     52%
1912     Wilson     41.8%     82%
1892     Cleveland     46.0%     62%
1888     Harrison     47.8%     58%
1884     Cleveland     48.8%     55%
1880     Garfield     48.3%     58%
1876     Hayes     47.9%     50%
1860     Lincoln     39.9%     59%
1856     Buchanan     45.3%     59%
1848     Taylor     47.3%     56%
1844     Polk     49.3%     62%
1824     Adams     29.8%     32%

Rob Richie is executive director of The Center for Voting and Democracy

IRV Soars in Twin Cities, FairVote Corrects the Pundits on Meaning of Election Night '09
Election Day '09 was a roller-coaster for election reformers.  Instant runoff voting had a great night in Minnesota, where St. Paul voters chose to implement IRV for its city elections, and Minneapolis voters used IRV for the first time—with local media touting it as a big success. As the Star-Tribune noted in endorsing IRV for St. Paul, Tuesday’s elections give the Twin Cities a chance to show the whole state of Minnesota the benefits of adopting IRV. There were disappointments in Lowell and Pierce County too, but high-profile multi-candidate races in New Jersey and New York keep policymakers focused on ways to reform elections;  the Baltimore Sun and Miami Herald were among many newspapers publishing commentary from FairVote board member and former presidential candidate John Anderson on how IRV can mitigate the problems of plurality elections.

And as pundits try to make hay out of the national implications of Tuesday’s gubernatorial elections, Rob Richie in the Huffington Post concludes that the gubernatorial elections have little bearing on federal elections.

Links