In mid-October, I described a formula I developed to compare the value of a U.S. Presidential vote among states. The model takes into account the built-in advantage that smaller states enjoy under the Electoral College system, as well as the competitiveness of each state. The goal was to compare a voter's relative influence on the electoral vote tally. We're not looking for a voter's chance of being the single vote that decides the Presidency; we simply want to know how much they can tip the needle, compared to other states. If you haven't read my previous post, I suggest taking a look to see how I'm coming up with these values.
In the original post, which was three weeks before the election, I calculated the index using projections of the vote to come. Now that the election is over, let's see how those numbers hold up. Please note that the final numbers in many states have not been officially released, and some states are still counting. The numbers I am using are from David Wasserman's 2012 National Popular Vote Tracker as of November 25. The numbers will be updated over time, so this index is still preliminary.
As before, the values in the index use the least valuable vote in the nation as a baseline. Post-election, New York has edged out Oklahoma for the dubious honor of having the least valuable Presidential votes. All other states' scores are expressed as multiples of the New York value.
|
|
|
As it turns out, there are some pretty major differences between the projected values and the actual. There are three main reasons for this. The first, and most important, is that when a state's competitiveness is included in the formula, it's going to bring a lot of volatility. Whether a state is considered a safe or swing state, the margins are going to fluctuate from one election to the next, changing the index. And because we used projections in the pre-election index, it was even more volatile. The projection data came from Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight blog as of October 15. Silver's predictions were overall quite accurate on election day, but as the data was based on ongoing polling, the projections moved around throughout the campaign. Virginia had a particularly high Value Index in mid-October because the polling was razor-thin there at the time; Silver projected the margin at 0.1%. The actual margin in Virginia on election day was 3.9%; still close, but an order of magnitude from the projection three weeks prior. This is not a criticism of Silver's predictions; his numbers were based on polling, which was constantly affected by events in the campaigns and movements in popular opinion. If the vote in Virginia had remained that close on November 6, it would have easily deserved its lofty score; the closer the state's margin is, the more likely that a voter can push the needle and affect the electoral vote.
The second change in the data was the populations used. The formula does not use the state's total population, but rather the voting-eligible population (VEP), which includes residents who are U.S. citizens, at least 18 years of age, and not otherwise barred from voting (due to a felony, for example). For the previous post, I could not find VEP data that was current, so I used the 2010 VEP numbers from the United States Elections Project. Since the election, they have updated their VEP data for 2012, and therefore so have I.
The final change in the data is due to an error I made in the original data set. Remember how I tried to explain away the high score Delaware rated on the index? As it turns out, I had transposed the VEP amounts for Delaware and the District of Columbia. This caused Delaware's score to be inflated, and DC's to be deflated. I apologize for this error.
So, now that we have the post-election scores, what can we learn from this? For one thing, the "swing states" don't have quite the stranglehold on vote value that we saw previously. In October, the top seven states in the index (not counting Delaware) were the most-watched swing states in the election. In the final numbers, however, those seven states (VA, CO, NV, IA, NH, FL, OH) are spread out through the top 14 positions of the index. Most of the other states in between (such as Alaska, #3 on the index) were pretty solid in color. What gives? The swing states fell in the index in large part because they were not nearly as close as predicted in mid-October, with the exception of Florida. The collective margin of the six non-Florida swing states was 3.9% on election day, as opposed to 1.2% in the projection. This lowered their scores enough to be overtaken by a second effect: the small-state advantage. The Electoral College is designed to give states with small populations have more electoral votes per capita than larger states. This makes a vote much more valuable in a small state, even one that tends to vote solidly for one party. Alaska voted for Romney with a 14% margin, but since its population is so low, it would take a smaller number of voters to change that margin (and potentially, the electoral vote) than it would in a larger state with the same margin.
So we see that voters in both swing states and small states have an inherent advantage when it comes to the electoral math. We already know how this affects Presidential campaigning, as the swing states are cluster-bombed with negative attack ads, while the other states' issues and concerns are largely ignored by both sides. But there is a more fundamental problem with this system: it practically disenfranchises some voters, while others are "über-enfranchised," wielding outsized power compared to many of their fellow citizens. As the index shows, a vote in Florida in 2012 was worth more than 30 votes in New York.
Under a popular vote system, however, every citizen would have an equal vote, and their concerns could not be ignored due to accidents of geography. How does the current system compare to such a nation? Again, I compared the Vote Value Index to a one person-one vote system to see how the value stacks up. Below, the states are listed with the amount of value their citizens' votes hold, compared to their value under a popular vote.
|
|
|
A vote in Florida under the current system is worth six times its value under a popular vote, whereas a New York vote only holds one-fifth of the value of a popular vote. Eighteen states, comprising 23% of eligible voters, hold an advantage, with their votes more valuable under the Electoral College. In the other thirty-two states and one district, 77% of us have less power to elect the President than they would under a popular vote.
This may all seem like a moot point, since the Electoral College is a part of our Constitution and cannot be abolished without amending it, which is a long shot at best. However, there is a practical way to institute a popular vote within the framework of the Electoral College, and without Congressional action. The National Popular Vote Plan, advocated by organizations such as FairVote, is a pact between states that can be passed by state legislatures. These states agree to allocate their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. However, this agreement only takes effect when enough states have entered the pact to total at least 270 electoral votes, the number required to win the Presidency. This pact has already been passed into law by nine states, with 132 electoral votes among them (just under half of the requirement), and is under consideration by several other states. When you look at how many states are disadvantaged under the Electoral College, it is easy to imagine enough states joining the pact to change the system. This will only happen, however, with enough pressure from citizens on their state governments.
For anyone wanting to look at the data behind the Vote Value Index, I have a Google spreadsheet with the data.
No comments:
Post a Comment