By now it is an article of faith that the electoral college is stacked in favor of Republican presidential candidates. And that’s not wrong. With the system based on the number of Senators plus U.S. Representatives for each state, the states smallest in population have much greater per-voter influence than the largest. And so we wind up with the absurdly undemocratic result of the losing candidate (with fewer votes) being able to win (Trump in 2016, G.W. Bush in 2000 in the modern era).
But surprisingly, it’s not the very smallest states (those with 3 or 4 electoral votes) that are the source of the bias against Democratic candidates. It’s the next largest tier in terms of population (those with 5 to 9 electoral votes)
Let’s take a look:
There are 14 states (actually 13, plus the District of Columbia with 3 EVs) with 3 or 4 EVs. Yes, I know that some of these have gone up and down following post-Census reapportionment over the past couple of decades. But some of them have simply shifted from 3 to 4 (like Montana) or dropped down from the next group up (like West Virginia, dropping from 5 to 4). This does not really affect the general pattern you’ll see here. Here they are, along with the party that won the state in the last 6 elections:
| State |
2020 |
2016 |
2012 |
2008 |
2004 |
2000 |
| Hawaii (4) |
D |
D |
D |
D |
D |
D |
| Idaho (4) |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R |
| Maine (4) |
D, 3-1 |
D, 3-1 |
D |
D |
D |
D |
| Montana (4) |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R |
| N. hampshire (4) |
D |
D |
D |
D |
D |
R |
| rhode island (4) |
D |
D |
D |
D |
D |
D |
| west virginia (4) |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R |
| alaska (3) |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R |
| delaware (3) |
D |
D |
D |
D |
D |
D |
| DC (3) |
D |
D |
D |
D |
D |
D |
| north dakota (3) |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R |
| south dakota (3) |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R |
| vermont (3) |
D |
D |
D |
D |
D |
D |
| wyoming (3) |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R |
So in 2020, that’s 7 D (counting Maine) and 7 R.
2016? 7-7.
2012? 7-7.
2008? 7-7.
2004? 7-7.
2000? 6-8.
Reflecting our modern red state/blue state polarization, that’s about as perfect a split as you can find. The geographic divide is also clear — the Democratic states are almost all New England or Mid-Atlantic, the Republican states almost all in the West (Great Plains plus Alaska).
Now, let’s take a look at the next tier. There are currently 15 states with 5 to 9 electoral votes. Let’s see how they voted across the same time frame:
| state |
2020 |
2016 |
2012 |
2008 |
2004 |
2000 |
| alabama (9) |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R |
| south carolina (9) |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R |
| kentucky (8) |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R |
| louisiana (8) |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R |
| oregon (8) |
D |
D |
D |
D |
D |
D |
| connecticut (7) |
D |
D |
D |
D |
D |
D |
| oklahoma (7) |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R |
| arkansas (6) |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R |
| iowa (6) |
R |
R |
D |
D |
R |
D |
| kansas (6) |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R |
| mississippi (6) |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R |
| nevada (6) |
D |
D |
D |
D |
R |
R |
| utah (6) |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R |
| nebraska (5) |
R, 4-1 |
R |
R |
R, 4-1 |
R |
R |
| new mexico (5) |
D |
D |
D |
D |
R |
D |
How did the Democrats do against the Republicans in these states?
In 2020, it’s 4-11 (including Nebraska).
2016: 4-11.
2012: 5-10.
2008: 5-10.
2004: 2-13.
2000: 4-11.
In these states, we see some changes over time: Iowa going from D-leaning to solid R, Nevada and New Mexico going from R/swingy to D/lean D. But the Republicans generally beat the Democrats by more than 2-1 in terms of states won in this group. In terms of geography, it’s almost all Appalachia/Deep South Republican states versus a handful of mostly Western Democratic ones. And because these states have anywhere from 5-9 EVs, they outweigh the group of states with 3-4 EVs by a huge margin in the electoral college (currently, 102-49).
If anything, this shows that the bias in the Electoral College is even worse than you thought — it’s just not found where you might have expected, with that group of states with the tiniest populations. This is also a problem that’s not going away anytime soon; shifts in Presidential preference seem to occur over a period of decades and there’s no reason to think any large number of these states are shifting from their current Presidential preferences.
On the face of it, the system in Maine and Nebraska seems fairer: one EV to the candidate who wins in each Congressional district, plus two “bonus votes” (representing the Senate seats) to the statewide victor. However, this system is also easily rigged, as seen in the vicious gerrymandering of Congressional districts in many states. And, a study of the 2000 through 2016 elections based on this exact premise found that the 2012 election would actually have flipped to Romney, even with his popular vote loss to Obama. In 4 of the 5 elections, the EV count would have shifted in favor of the Republican candidate. The only exception was 2016, but even then Trump would still have won despite losing the popular vote. Overall, this system would continue to disproportionately benefit Republicans.
Personally, I think the only answer in the near term is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. I expect most of you have heard of this; states choosing to join the compact agree to allocate their electors to whichever candidate receives the most votes nationwide, but only once enough states have joined to provide an absolute electoral majority (270 EVs). As of April 2024, seventeen states and DC have joined, with a combined total of 209 EVs. Some action is pending on the compact in several other states with another 50 EVs. Eliminating the Electoral College completely would require a Constitutional amendment, and it seems unlikely that enough small states (or Republican-leaning ones; remember the Republicans have lost the popular vote in 7 of the last 8 Presidential elections) would approve such an amendment. The NPVIC can do an end run around this roadblock, because the Constitution also grants states the power to allocate their EVs in whatever manner they like. For the same reason, I also like its chances when the Republicans inevitably sue to block it.
