New study reveals how the Electoral College favors Republican candidate even when Democrats win the popular vote.

By |2019-09-18T06:00:17-08:00September 19th, 2019|Categories: News|Tags: , , , , , , |7 Comments

An antiquated system that never served the country well.

Courtesy of Vox:

In 2016, Donald Trump won the presidency despite receiving nearly 3 million fewer votes than Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. In 2000, George W. Bush pulled off a similar trick. According to a new study, these are not flukes. They are the kind of results we should expect from the Electoral College.

The study, by three economics researchers at the University of Texas, quantifies just how often the Electoral College will produce an “inversion” — that is, an election where one candidate wins the popular vote but the other walks away with the presidency. The numbers are simply astonishing.


To reach their conclusions, the research team ran hundreds of thousands of simulated elections under various election models. The paper as a whole studies three periods in American history: the Antebellum period from 1836 to 1852, the Reconstruction period from 1872 to 1888, and the modern period from 1964 to 2016 (although many of their modern samples only look at the period from 1988 to 2016). These periods were selected to exclude eras when one party typically won in a landslide.

Overall, they conclude that “the high probability of inversion at narrow vote margins is an across-history property of the Electoral College system.” The Electoral College has, at various times, given an advantage to Democrats, Republicans, and the now-defunct Whig Party. Now it gives a clear advantage to Republicans.

The Electoral College skews elections by giving a structural advantage to small states. Each state receives a number of electoral votes equal to the number of United States House of Representatives members from that state, plus two. These two additional votes effectively triple the voting power of the smallest states, while having only a negligible impact on the voting power of large states.

Additionally, modern-day Democrats are disadvantaged because they “have tended to win large states by large margins and lose them by small margins.” In 2016, for example, Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton won California by nearly 3.5 million votes. Meanwhile, she lost the crucial swing states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin by fewer than 80,000 votes combined.

It’s not hard to imagine 2020 producing an even starker inversion.

I have no confidence that we will be able to do anything about the electoral college before the 2020 election, but modifying it or trashing it altogether should be on the Democrat’s Honey-do list the next time they take power. 

The damn thing is skewing results and putting too much power in the hands of too few people.  

About the Author:

This blog is dedicated to finding the truth, exposing the lies, and holding our politicians and leaders accountable when they fall far short of the promises that they have made to both my fellow Alaskans and the American people.


  1. Anonymous September 19, 2019 at 4:06 am

    Currently each state gets one electoral vote per representative and one for each of its two senators. I think if the electoral college was changed to only give each state one vote per representative it would go a long way toward improving the system and making it more fair (assuming the EC will never be abolished entirely).

    Of course, you can count on the fact that if it makes the system more fair, all Republicans will oppose it.

  2. Anonymous September 19, 2019 at 4:26 am

    Just reinforces the fact that republicans can’t win unless they CHEAT !!!!

    • Anonymous September 19, 2019 at 6:14 am

      Exactly how is following the Constitution cheating?

  3. Anonymous September 19, 2019 at 4:54 am

    The electoral college works correctly as it was designed to do. This is exactly why it exists.

    Once again, Democrats didn’t get their way…. Hillary was a lock!! lol. She obviously didn’t win so the system MUST be broken! All to familiar theme from the far selfish left, I didn’t get what I was promised so I’m going to whaaaa whaaa whaaa and forget that these elements are in place in the Constitution for everyone’s protection and pretend otherwise.

    No, Hillary’s campaign and her own arrogance were broken and the problem for her. Maybe she should have touched down in Wisconsin a few times or the rust belt between her east and west coast $10,000 plate dinners with celebrities and other useless billionaires that mean nothing to the average American.

  4. Anon September 19, 2019 at 8:17 am

    Democrats say this is *NOT* a replacement for the election security legislation we obviously need. Nor is it the $600 million the House approved.

    But it is a step in the right direction, and is evidence that public pressure is working to some degree on “#MoscowMitch,” who until now has blocked election security as if his very career and ability to misuse his position as Senate Majority Leader depended upon interference from a hostile foreign country.

Comments are closed.