With Election Day approaching, the race for the presidency is remarkably close, often characterized as a toss-up. General election polls, regardless of whether Vice President Kamala Harris or former President Donald Trump is shown to be leading, that advantage is well within the margin of error.
Despite the virtual tie, the Harris campaign characterizes her as the underdog — and that indeed is the case, because of the unusual method by which U.S. presidential elections are decided.
In an appearance on HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher, veteran Democratic strategist James Carville pointed out the recurring truth that in the existing landscape, the Electoral College is stacked against Democratic presidential nominees. “We have to win by three in the popular vote to win the Electoral College,” Carville said.
The bias exists in the method by which Electoral College votes are awarded to states — that is, according to size of their Congressional delegations. Votes for the number of Congressional districts (i.e., members of the House of Representatives) are apportioned appropriately based on population. But then two additional Electoral College votes given to each state (for each state’s two senators) unfairly benefit smaller states.
Michigan, for example, is 10 times more populous than South Dakota but has only five times as many Electoral College votes. A correction of two fewer votes per state (and Washington D.C.), making electoral vote counts (like House member counts) proportional to population, would have put Al Gore ahead of George W. Bush in the 2000 contest 225 v. 211), consistent with the popular vote.
Continue Reading on the Detroit Free Press
