Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pftt2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-08T10:51:51.122Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Electoral College Winner's Advantage

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2009

Jack E. Riggs ,
Gerald R. Hobbs  and
Todd H. Riggs
Jack E. Riggs
Affiliation:
West Virginia University
Gerald R. Hobbs
Affiliation:
West Virginia University
Todd H. Riggs
Affiliation:
United States Military Academy
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Compared to the popular vote, the Electoral College magnifies the perception of the winner's margin of victory. In this analysis, a method of quantifying the magnitude of the advantage given to the winner due to the Electoral College's two electoral vote add-on and winner-take-all methodologies is presented. Using the electoral vote distribution that was present in the 2000 U.S. presidential election, we analyzed one million random two-candidate simulated elections. The results show that the net effect of the Electoral College is to give the winning candidate an average 29.45 electoral vote advantage per election due to the winner-take-all methodology. This winner's advantage includes an average 0.42 electoral vote advantage given to the winner per election due to the two electoral vote add-on.

Type
Features
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 42 , Issue 2 , April 2009 , pp. 353 - 357
Copyright
Copyright © The American Political Science Association 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Berthoud, John E. 1997. “The Electoral Lock Thesis: The Weighting Bias Component.” PS: Political Science and Politics 30 (2): 189–93.Google Scholar
Brams, Steven J., and Davis, Morton D.. 1974. “The 3/2's Rule in Presidential Campaigning.” American Political Science Review 68 (1): 113–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Destler, I.M. 1996. “The Myth of the ‘Electoral Lock.’” PS: Political Science and Politics 29 (3): 491–94.Google Scholar
Garand, James C., and Parent, T. Wayne. 1991. “Representation, Swing, and Bias in U.S. Presidential Elections, 1872–1988.” American Journal of Political Science 35 (4): 1011–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grofman, Bernard, Brunell, Thomas, and Campagna, Janet. 1997. “Distinguishing Between the Effects of Swing Ratio and Bias on Outcomes in the US Electoral College, 1900–1992.” Electoral Studies 16 (4): 471–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harvard Law Review. 2001. “Rethinking the Electoral College Debate: The Framers, Federalism, and One Person, One Vote.” Harvard Law Review 114 (8): 2526–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holbrook, Thomas M., and Van Dunk, Emily. 1993. “Electoral Competition in the American States.” American Political Science Review 87 (4): 955–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longley, Lawrence D., and Dana, James D. Jr. 1984. “New Empirical Estimates of the Biases of the Electoral College for the 1980s.” Western Political Quarterly 37 (1): 157–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, Michael C. 1974. “Partisan Bias in the Electoral College.” Journal of Politics 36 (4): 1033–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaw, Daron R. 1999. “The Methods behind the Madness: Presidential Electoral College Strategies, 1988–1996.” Journal of Politics 61 (4): 893–913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sterling, Carleton W. 1978. “The Electoral College Biases Revealed: The Conventional Wisdom and Game Theory Models Notwithstanding.” The Western Political Quarterly 31 (2): 159–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar