Biased elections: 2016 as an example
Since January of 2017, one party has controlled the Presidency, the Senate and the House, and has been working to install enough judges to control the courts for decades. In situations like this, the party in power will tend to say, "Elections have consequences," "The voters have spoken," and/or "We have a mandate from the people."
However, our election and government systems are organized in such a way that the majority of voters - as distinct from anti-majority mechanisms in the system - may have actually said they wanted something else. And the 2016 election is a good example of that - and not just in terms of the presidential selection by the Electoral College.
Presidential election
First, let's look at the popular vote in the 2016 presidential election. Wikipedia shows us the vote counts below. (I'm only showing the counts for the Democrats and Republicans as the candidate with the next highest vote count received only 3.28% of the vote. See the article for details on other candidates.)
So, Clinton won by 2.09% or 2,868,686 votes. But Clinton got about 42.2% of the Electoral College, while Trump got 56.5%. (A few Electors voted for other people.) Clinton's 2.09% lead in the popular vote was "replaced" by Trump leading by 14.3% in the Electoral College.
(Trump and some fringe sources have made claims that millions of fraudulent votes were cast for Clinton. That would be an important issue IF there was substantial evident behind the claim. However, it's not relevant to the immediate discussion. The above figures are the official vote counts. The point is that official vote counts result in such blocking of majority rule. The 2016 election was the 5th time in US history the candidate with the highest popular vote lost in the Electoral College. In 1860, Lincoln won the plurality of the popular vote and a majority in the Electoral College, but the second-place candidate in popular vote came in 4th place in the Electoral College.)
House elections
To give an idea what the majority wanted in the House of Representatives elections, I'll show you the nationwide vote totals for all the Democratic candidates and all the Republican candidates. Of course, the US election system does not take the national vote totals for parties and then allot House seats proportionately. It's not the intention of this article to argue the pros and cons of doing legislative elections that way. I merely use it as a way to suggest how many voters throughout the country chose one party or the other.
Wikipedia gives us these figures:
It is true, the GOP did get more votes nationwide. (The result may have been different if not for "voter suppression" and disenfranchisement, but we can't prove this.) We do know the GOP ended up with 6 fewer seats, which may suggest declining support.
There's a significant discrepancy between the percentage of votes cast for a party and the number of seats assigned to the party. To some degree, that's unavoidable in this national comparison. However, it's reasonable to surmise that gerrymandering played a role. The Wikipedia article gives data for each state. On the state level, there are a number of states which show large enough discrepancies to suggest gerrymandering. While it seems more extensive in certain "red states," there are also a few "blue states" with suspicious discrepancies.
Speaking only of those who chose to vote and were allowed to vote, if House seats were allotted proportionately to the national votes, the GOP would have had about 5 more seats than the Democrats in the House - but in reality, the GOP has 47 more seats. Regardless of the reasons for this, it indicates the current system is misrepresenting the will of the majority.
Senate elections
In the US Senate, each state gets 2 Senators regardless of population. Therefore, it's not proportionally representative. We'll look at this below.
The comparison is not as simple for the US Senate. Senators have a six-year term and 1/3 of all Senate seats are up for election every 2 years. So, we can't look at one single election and get data for the entire country and Senate. We'll start with the 2016 Senate races as they'll tell us what voters were thinking most recently in those places where there was a race for the Senate.
2016
Wikipedia gives us this data:
I included only Democrats and Republicans in the data for the presidential and House elections. However, there were 2 "independent" Senators, so they should be considered. They both caucused with the Democrats, so we might add up the votes of the Democrats and "independents." That would give the Democrats/Independents 54.1% and the Republicans 42.4%. (Third parties received the remainder.)
2014
Wikipedia gives us this vote info:
Although the Democrats were well ahead of the Republicans in votes nationwide, because the Senate isn't proportional to population, the number of GOP Senate seats jumped from 45 to 54, giving them a "majority." In turn, the GOP Senate majority blocked confirmation of the president's nominees to many openings.
2012
Wikipedia gives us these figures for the 2012 Senate races:
Once again, the Democrats had a clear majority of Senate votes nationally. That is, every one of the three elections which together account for all 100 Senate seats had a definitive majority for the Democrats. In addition to the votes for "Democrats" there are additional votes for "Independents" who caucus with the Democrats.
To summarize: In the 3 elections that together select the full Senate, the Democrat/Independents received 54.4% in 2012, 52.9% in 2014 and 54.1% in 2016. And as a result, they went from having 53 seats to having only 48 seats in the Senate - giving the GOP control of the Senate. This, despite the fact that in none of those 3 elections did the Republicans ever get as high as 44% of the votes.
In the last 3 Senate elections, the GOP never got 44%, How did they get 49% in House elections?
This raised another question in my mind. When we add up all the votes for the various 2016 Senate races, we find Republican candidates received 42.41% of all those votes. But when all the votes were added up for all the 2016 House races across the country, Republicans are shown to have received 49.1% of those votes. Since only 1/3 of Senate seats were up for election in 2016, it could have been explained by the particular states with Senate races in 2016. But the 2012, 2014 and 2016 Senate elections collectively cover all 100 Senate seats - and in none of those years did the GOP reach 44% of the votes.
We're talking about votes, not how many House seats each party got, so gerrymandering does not explain the difference between less than 44% and 49.1%. Also, the fact that both figures represent only those who were able to vote, voter suppression can't explain the difference. Of course, one should not expect the two figures to be exactly the same. However, the difference seems large.
It might be explained if Republican voters are more inclined to fill out the entire ballot, while Democratic voters are more inclined to only vote for President and Senator. Comparing the total nationwide votes for President and the nationwide vote for House candidates, we do see that in most years the difference between Republican presidential votes and Republican House votes is smaller than the difference between Democratic presidential votes and Democratic House votes. However, that wasn't true in 2008. And in 2016, the number of Republican House votes was greater than the number of Republican presidential votes. Presumably, that is (at least partly) explained by Republican voters who would not vote for Trump. In any case, it makes a comparison between presidential and House votes for the two parties in 2016 tricky. It's hard to say whether that fully explains it, or whether there is some other mischief involved.
In the 2008 election, the difference between Democratic presidential votes and Democratic House votes was significantly less than the difference on the Republican side. So, it's not a "law of nature" that Democrats are less inclined to vote in House races. Perhaps, those voters aren't usually given the motivation..
President, House and Senate
If these nationwide vote totals determined who held office, the US would now have a Democrat in the White House, a Democratic majority in the Senate, judges and other Democratic president's nominees confirmed by the Democratic Senate, and a small GOP majority in the House. The point here is not the merits of one party or the other. The point is that the government thoroughly misrepresents the will of the majority.
This is not new. In 1876, the Democratic presidential candidate received 50.92% of the popular vote. The Republican received 47.92% - and was given the presidency by the Electoral College. Gerrymandering may have increased in recent years, but it's not new. The Senate has had two seats for each state since the birth of the US.
The fact that the election system is guaranteed to under-represent working people may be a factor in why so few Americans bother to vote. Yes, maybe if 100% of those Americans who are allowed to vote did cast ballots, it may be possible to climb over the biases built into the system. But that doesn't justify having a rigged system in the first place.
Election Day is always a work day. If a voter doesn't feel safe taking time off from work, and finds himself waiting in a 5-hour long line at the polling site, and if he's seen that past elections gave government control to a party chosen by a minority of voters - he may choose not to risk his job by spending 5 hours in that line. Those long lines tend to be in poor and minority communities, and it's people in those communities who may feel taking time off from their job is risky. We shouldn't blame these people. We should blame those who maintain such a biased election system.
However, our election and government systems are organized in such a way that the majority of voters - as distinct from anti-majority mechanisms in the system - may have actually said they wanted something else. And the 2016 election is a good example of that - and not just in terms of the presidential selection by the Electoral College.
Presidential election
First, let's look at the popular vote in the 2016 presidential election. Wikipedia shows us the vote counts below. (I'm only showing the counts for the Democrats and Republicans as the candidate with the next highest vote count received only 3.28% of the vote. See the article for details on other candidates.)
| Candidate | Clinton (Democrat)... | Trump (Republican) |
| Popular vote count | 65,853,514 | 62,984,828 |
| Popular vote % | 48.18% | 46.09% |
| Electoral College count | 227 | 304 |
| Electoral College % | 42.2% | 56.5% |
So, Clinton won by 2.09% or 2,868,686 votes. But Clinton got about 42.2% of the Electoral College, while Trump got 56.5%. (A few Electors voted for other people.) Clinton's 2.09% lead in the popular vote was "replaced" by Trump leading by 14.3% in the Electoral College.
(Trump and some fringe sources have made claims that millions of fraudulent votes were cast for Clinton. That would be an important issue IF there was substantial evident behind the claim. However, it's not relevant to the immediate discussion. The above figures are the official vote counts. The point is that official vote counts result in such blocking of majority rule. The 2016 election was the 5th time in US history the candidate with the highest popular vote lost in the Electoral College. In 1860, Lincoln won the plurality of the popular vote and a majority in the Electoral College, but the second-place candidate in popular vote came in 4th place in the Electoral College.)
House elections
To give an idea what the majority wanted in the House of Representatives elections, I'll show you the nationwide vote totals for all the Democratic candidates and all the Republican candidates. Of course, the US election system does not take the national vote totals for parties and then allot House seats proportionately. It's not the intention of this article to argue the pros and cons of doing legislative elections that way. I merely use it as a way to suggest how many voters throughout the country chose one party or the other.
Wikipedia gives us these figures:
| Party | Republican... | Democrat |
| # of votes | 63,173,815 | 61,776,554 |
| % of votes | 49.1% | 48.0% |
| % of seats taken | 55.4% | 44.6% |
It is true, the GOP did get more votes nationwide. (The result may have been different if not for "voter suppression" and disenfranchisement, but we can't prove this.) We do know the GOP ended up with 6 fewer seats, which may suggest declining support.
There's a significant discrepancy between the percentage of votes cast for a party and the number of seats assigned to the party. To some degree, that's unavoidable in this national comparison. However, it's reasonable to surmise that gerrymandering played a role. The Wikipedia article gives data for each state. On the state level, there are a number of states which show large enough discrepancies to suggest gerrymandering. While it seems more extensive in certain "red states," there are also a few "blue states" with suspicious discrepancies.
Speaking only of those who chose to vote and were allowed to vote, if House seats were allotted proportionately to the national votes, the GOP would have had about 5 more seats than the Democrats in the House - but in reality, the GOP has 47 more seats. Regardless of the reasons for this, it indicates the current system is misrepresenting the will of the majority.
Senate elections
In the US Senate, each state gets 2 Senators regardless of population. Therefore, it's not proportionally representative. We'll look at this below.
The comparison is not as simple for the US Senate. Senators have a six-year term and 1/3 of all Senate seats are up for election every 2 years. So, we can't look at one single election and get data for the entire country and Senate. We'll start with the 2016 Senate races as they'll tell us what voters were thinking most recently in those places where there was a race for the Senate.
2016
Wikipedia gives us this data:
| Party | Democrat.... | Republican... | Independent |
| Seats before vote | 44 | 54 | 2 |
| Nationwide votes | 51,269,434 | 40,761,406 | 562,935 |
| Nationwide % | 53.54% | 42.41% | 0.58% |
| Seats after vote | 46 | 52 | 2 |
I included only Democrats and Republicans in the data for the presidential and House elections. However, there were 2 "independent" Senators, so they should be considered. They both caucused with the Democrats, so we might add up the votes of the Democrats and "independents." That would give the Democrats/Independents 54.1% and the Republicans 42.4%. (Third parties received the remainder.)
2014
Wikipedia gives us this vote info:
| Party | Democrat.... | Republican... | Independent |
| Seats before vote | 53 | 45 | 2 |
| Nationwide votes | 22,598,628 | 19,302,133 | 672,196 |
| Nationwide % | 51.39% | 43.89% | 1.52% |
| Seats after vote | 44 | 54 | 2 |
Although the Democrats were well ahead of the Republicans in votes nationwide, because the Senate isn't proportional to population, the number of GOP Senate seats jumped from 45 to 54, giving them a "majority." In turn, the GOP Senate majority blocked confirmation of the president's nominees to many openings.
2012
Wikipedia gives us these figures for the 2012 Senate races:
| Party | Democrat.... | Republican.. | Independent |
| Seats before vote | 51 | 47 | 2 |
| Nationwide votes | 49,988,282 | 39,128,301 | 961,282 |
| Nationwide % | 53.43% | 41.82% | 1.03% |
| Seats after vote | 53 | 45 | 2 |
Once again, the Democrats had a clear majority of Senate votes nationally. That is, every one of the three elections which together account for all 100 Senate seats had a definitive majority for the Democrats. In addition to the votes for "Democrats" there are additional votes for "Independents" who caucus with the Democrats.
To summarize: In the 3 elections that together select the full Senate, the Democrat/Independents received 54.4% in 2012, 52.9% in 2014 and 54.1% in 2016. And as a result, they went from having 53 seats to having only 48 seats in the Senate - giving the GOP control of the Senate. This, despite the fact that in none of those 3 elections did the Republicans ever get as high as 44% of the votes.
In the last 3 Senate elections, the GOP never got 44%, How did they get 49% in House elections?
This raised another question in my mind. When we add up all the votes for the various 2016 Senate races, we find Republican candidates received 42.41% of all those votes. But when all the votes were added up for all the 2016 House races across the country, Republicans are shown to have received 49.1% of those votes. Since only 1/3 of Senate seats were up for election in 2016, it could have been explained by the particular states with Senate races in 2016. But the 2012, 2014 and 2016 Senate elections collectively cover all 100 Senate seats - and in none of those years did the GOP reach 44% of the votes.
We're talking about votes, not how many House seats each party got, so gerrymandering does not explain the difference between less than 44% and 49.1%. Also, the fact that both figures represent only those who were able to vote, voter suppression can't explain the difference. Of course, one should not expect the two figures to be exactly the same. However, the difference seems large.
It might be explained if Republican voters are more inclined to fill out the entire ballot, while Democratic voters are more inclined to only vote for President and Senator. Comparing the total nationwide votes for President and the nationwide vote for House candidates, we do see that in most years the difference between Republican presidential votes and Republican House votes is smaller than the difference between Democratic presidential votes and Democratic House votes. However, that wasn't true in 2008. And in 2016, the number of Republican House votes was greater than the number of Republican presidential votes. Presumably, that is (at least partly) explained by Republican voters who would not vote for Trump. In any case, it makes a comparison between presidential and House votes for the two parties in 2016 tricky. It's hard to say whether that fully explains it, or whether there is some other mischief involved.
In the 2008 election, the difference between Democratic presidential votes and Democratic House votes was significantly less than the difference on the Republican side. So, it's not a "law of nature" that Democrats are less inclined to vote in House races. Perhaps, those voters aren't usually given the motivation..
President, House and Senate
If these nationwide vote totals determined who held office, the US would now have a Democrat in the White House, a Democratic majority in the Senate, judges and other Democratic president's nominees confirmed by the Democratic Senate, and a small GOP majority in the House. The point here is not the merits of one party or the other. The point is that the government thoroughly misrepresents the will of the majority.
This is not new. In 1876, the Democratic presidential candidate received 50.92% of the popular vote. The Republican received 47.92% - and was given the presidency by the Electoral College. Gerrymandering may have increased in recent years, but it's not new. The Senate has had two seats for each state since the birth of the US.
The fact that the election system is guaranteed to under-represent working people may be a factor in why so few Americans bother to vote. Yes, maybe if 100% of those Americans who are allowed to vote did cast ballots, it may be possible to climb over the biases built into the system. But that doesn't justify having a rigged system in the first place.
Election Day is always a work day. If a voter doesn't feel safe taking time off from work, and finds himself waiting in a 5-hour long line at the polling site, and if he's seen that past elections gave government control to a party chosen by a minority of voters - he may choose not to risk his job by spending 5 hours in that line. Those long lines tend to be in poor and minority communities, and it's people in those communities who may feel taking time off from their job is risky. We shouldn't blame these people. We should blame those who maintain such a biased election system.
Comments
Post a Comment