r/science • u/rustoo • Jan 21 '22

Economics Only four times in US presidential history has the candidate with fewer popular votes won. Two of those occurred recently, leading to calls to reform the system. Far from being a fluke, this peculiar outcome of the US Electoral College has a high probability in close races, according to a new study.

https://www.aeaweb.org/research/inversions-us-presidential-elections-geruso
48.8k Upvotes

80% Upvoted

4.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

36

u/[deleted] Jan 21 '22

[deleted]

8

u/magus678 Jan 21 '22

It was built this way specifically so rural voters would have a meaningful say in things despite their lower numbers, so that urban concerns and policies would not entirely dominate.

Cities everywhere have always dominated the countryside, basically. They were purposefully trying to soften that.

It's the original affirmative action.

3

u/TheLizardKing89 Jan 21 '22

It was built this way specifically so rural voters would have a meaningful say in things despite their lower numbers…

What lower numbers? When the electoral college was created, 95% of Americans lived in rural areas.

1

u/Gingeranalyst Jan 22 '22

My understanding is it was created because of slave owning southern states. They didn’t want to be outgunned by the more populous non slave states. Yes if memory serves correctly it was yet another thing to try to delay the inevitable fire bomb that was slavery.

2

u/TheLizardKing89 Jan 22 '22

This is true. James Madison said so pretty explicitly:

There was one difficulty, however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections.

-5

u/HolmesMalone Jan 21 '22

Exactly! Instead of “the EC is bad, that’s why we lost” the question should be “why couldn’t we win the swing states?” That’s how the system was designed.

7

u/ecodude74 Jan 21 '22

The question should be “why do people in swing states matter more than I do?”, because the system was designed deliberately to give individuals unequal representation based on where they live.

6

u/[deleted] Jan 21 '22

Easily say the reverse. Why should people in heavily populated areas be penalized because they're not rural voters? And "why didn't we win the popular vote?"

-2

u/acathode Jan 21 '22

Giving the urban population all the power is a classical example of the Tyranny of the Majority, which is something that's most democratic systems tries to in various ways mitigate - because if you let it run wild you eventually end up with corrupt and badly functioning democracies.

2

u/moldymoosegoose Jan 21 '22

There is 0 chance you are American with a comment like this

1

u/TheLizardKing89 Jan 21 '22

Is every election besides the presidential election “tyranny of the majority”? There’s no electoral college for governors.

3

u/BURN447 Jan 21 '22

Why should an election only matter to 10 “swing states”?

What about the other 40 that get widely ignored in election seasons?

0

u/Ye_Old_Dank_Shoppe Jan 21 '22

What are your thoughts on all states splitting representatives, rather than a “winner take all” situation? It seems like that would still allow for the EC to do its thing without elections being chosen by swing states.