The Results of the 2016 Presidential Election Using The Proportional Electoral College

As I'm sure you all remember, six years ago I fixed the Electoral College. It's pretty simple, instead of awarding states as winner take all, electoral votes are awarded proportionally to the candidates based on what percentage of votes in the state each candidate receives. There are a lot of benefits to this plan:

1. The biggest advantage is the perception that every vote matters. My whole life, elections have focused exclusively on swing states. States like California, Texas and Illinois are ignored because it's a foregone conclusion. Not in this plan. Illinois has 20 electoral votes and they might go 12/8 or 14/6 or 10/10. So there are no wasted votes. Once people realize this, I would expect turnout to go up.

2. Likewise, using the a national popular vote creates the impression that a single vote doesn't matter in a sea of 130 million votes. Also, a national recount would be a disaster.

3. It just kind of makes sense. If we were coming up with a system today, would anyone propose that states should be winner take all. Does it make sense that if you carry a state 49 to 48 percent of the vote that you should get credit for winning all of the state? Proportional makes every vote count. Blowouts matter. If you get 90% of a state you should be rewarded more than your opponent who got 51% of a different state.

4. It actually recognizes that 3rd-party candidates got votes. If we actually did this, instead of requiring 270 to win, I'd just say the winner is who has the most electoral votes as 3rd party candidates make it difficult to get to 270 in a close race.

5. The biggest cultural impact is eliminating the idea of red and blue states. Not sure if you've noticed, but party lines are toxic and I think it would help quite a bit to realize that no states are entirely red or blue, that we're all mixed together, living side by side.

All that said, how would the 2016 election have turned out with this system in place?

(Methodology: I first multiple a candidates percentage of the vote times the number of electoral votes and round to the nearest whole number. 6.48 becomes 6. Do this for all candidates. If there are any leftover electoral votes(this is common), I award them to the candidate that won the state. If there is an extra (this is quite rare) I would deduct from the candidate that won the least votes. In the cases of Hawaii, Texas and Washington, there were faithless electors so Trump + Clinton's actual total is only 531 electoral votes, but I'm awarding all 538.)

Click here to view the full spreadsheet with 3rd-party candidates.

How is this possible? How does an election with winner take all go from Trump 304 - Clinton 227 to Clinton 269 - Trump 260?

Clinton racked up bigger wins in her states. She gets credit for carrying California by a 2 to 1 margin and only barely losing Texas. If you ignore the names involved here, doesn't that make more sense. Shouldn't you get credit for all your votes? It would be like a baseball team giving up 8 runs in the 4th inning and 9 runs in the 7th inning but claiming victory because they had a better score in 6 out of the 9 innings.

Another nice thing about this system, is that it inherently doesn't favor one side over the other. It's not prone to pumping up the Democrat or punishing the Republican. It's simply making every vote count. In a 2020 election, it's just as likely that this system would help a Republican. In 2012, it would have portrayed a much closer election than the Obama 332 - Romney 206 result.

The Results of the 2000 Presidential Election if the Electoral College Awarded All States Proportionally

So a few days ago I posted How to Fix the Electoral College. I couldn't let it go.

Before I was sure that it was a good idea I needed to run the numbers and see what it would look like.

Here is the 2000 election showing state results comparing what happened to a proportional vote:

In 15 out of 51, due to rounding and 3rd party candidates, there was a leftover electoral vote. I awarded this to the candidate that won the state and marked these spots in teal. In Minnesota, due to rounding, there was an extra electoral vote. I deducted it from the candidate receiving the fewest votes, Nader.

(Also in 2000, DC had 3 electoral votes. One abstained in protest. So it's not on the chart above, but I've included it below in Gore's totals for math purposes.)

The popular vote totals:
Gore: 50,999,897
Bush: 50,456,002

Gore v Bush ratio = 50.268
Bush v Gore ratio = 49.732

Gore v Bush EC ratio = 267/538 = 49.628
Bush v Gore EC ratio = 271/538 = 50.372

Gore v Bush Prop ratio = 269/532 = 50.564
Bush v Gore Prop ratio = 263/532 = 49.436

So the EC was off the popular vote by .64
The Prop was off the popular vote by .296

It's more than twice as loyal to the popular vote, but I'm surprised it's not more so...there is quite a bit of rounding in this plan. Still mimicking the popular vote is not the main goal of this system. If it were, we could just use the popular vote.

- - -

Also, note that this system gives Nader 6 in the EC, compared to the 0 that he actually got in 2000. Not much but a truer representation that people actually voted for him.

- - -


Without running the numbers I am quite sure that in the 2008 election, Obama would have still won but it wouldn't have been as big of a blowout.

Quick analysis:

Obama's EC count: 365/538 = 67.844% of the nation's electoral votes
But Obama received 53.68% of the popular vote for the two main candidates.

- - -

What I love about this is that each state is no longer characterized as red or blue. Our states hold a mix of people and states like California and Texas that are solidly one way or the other, in reality are more nuanced. Not only would this create a better campaign season but it might not be so divisive on the country.

Fixing the Electoral College

I really thought I had already written this solution. But my search comes up empty. I'll try and keep this brief.

Current Problems with Electoral College
1. Most of the country doesn't have an incentive to vote as their state is already leaning one way or the other.
2. The candidates spend all their time and money in the swing states that matter

Problems with using the National Popular Vote
1. While every vote "counts," I predict that many people would think that in race of 130 million votes, their vote is insignificant
2. It's more complicated to count on election night and if there's a recount, it would be a disaster
3. Critics claim that candidates would spend all their time and money in big cities


The Obvious Solution
Keep the Electoral College but award all states proportionally, instead of winner take all.

Does it even make sense that in a state like Ohio that is split 50/50 every election, that all 18 electoral votes go one way or the other?

California has long been a solid 55 for Democrats. But that state's vote is only 57/40. If you're a Republican in CA, you must feel like it doesn't matter, but it's not like you're alone.

Plus, it would give third party candidates a chance to at least appear respectable, which is the first step toward building a viable third party.

If I had a ton of free time I'd love to go back and look at the last three elections under this system...but I don't. My guess is that each race would be even tighter.