Democrats have benefited far less than Republicans in the past several national elections because U.S. voting system flaws favor the right wing political network. For the Presidency, Democrats won the popular election four of the last five times but actually won the Presidency only twice due to the Electoral College. For the Senate, they won 6% more of the combined vote for present members (over the last three elections) but are in the minority with 6% fewer seats compared to Republicans (52R to 46D). For the House of Representatives, they won the popular vote once in the last three elections but never won a majority of seats, and they had a 4% smaller portion of seats than votes for each of the last three elections (See tables 1, 2, and 3).
Gerrymandering—not only for the House of Representatives but essentially also for the Presidency and Senate
How is this political imbalance possible for all three categories of elections for the national government? The term “Gerrymandering” was born in 1812 when Governor Elbridge Gerry so shamelessly redrew the districts of Massachusetts to favor his party that one district looked like a salamander (See fig. 1).
For House of Representatives elections, this process has since become routine in many states for determining U.S. congressional districts. As a result, the party controlling state government (mostly Republicans) redraws district borders after each census, usually according to various strategies to increase its percentage of seats. For example, in 2012, Democrats won 51 percent of the Congressional vote in Pennsylvania but took just five of 18 House seats because of redistricting.
For Senate and Presidential elections, similar processes (but not called Gerrymandering) favor some voters over others. These processes were created as a compromise when forming the constitution to counter small state fears of big state power and to accomodate slave states. For the Senate, two senators per state, regardless of size, over represents small states to counter the numerical advantage of big states in the House. Thus a trickle of votes from Wyoming (pop. 590,000) counts for as much as a torrent of votes from California (pop. 39 million) in reaching a Senate majority. This means that one-sixth of voters (located in small red states) account for 50% of Senate seats and have the potential to acquire a majority.
For the Presidency, the Electoral College also over represents small states, but as the legacy of the compromise giving slave states the means to count an extra 3/5 representation for slaves, who, of course, did not vote. Those who extoll the Electoral College’s virtue because it twice snatched the presidency for their candidate should reflect on this unsavory history. Indeed, voter suppression by disenfranchisement of minorities that may have contributed to recent election results marks a continuation of the original spirit of the Electoral College.
Today for the presidency, states receive one electoral vote for each senator and one for each member of the House of Representatives for a total of 538. Thus the same one-sixth of voters (in small red states) account for 50% of the 100 Electoral votes allocated for the number of senators, while representation is proportional in the 438 Electoral votes allocated for the number of congressional districts. This net gain makes it possible for these small states to overturn a general election majority in the Electoral College. Also, popular victories with large margins in some states can be over turned by small margins in other states.
Minority Government within U.S. Democracy
The result of all this is a minority government beginning in 2017 that will favor the interests of super rich libertarians at the top of the right wing political network. Even this minority victory, made possible by flaws in our voting system, was still not possible without support from unsavory groups, voter suppression, an FBI director’s partisan October surprise, and decades of propaganda misdirecting white anger. After all, the number of rich beneficiaries is far too small to win without the help of numerous citizens who must vote against their own interests, sometimes in favor of distracting social issues.
So, what can the rest of us do about this? Not much. The Constitution allows no change for the Senate regarding representation of the States but does allow removal of the Electoral College by amendment. However, change for the Electoral College by amendment is unlikely due to the difficulty of that process. Alternatively, the influence of the Electoral College could be eliminated by states changing their systems for allocating electoral votes, such as by joining the states of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. These states have agreed to award all electoral votes to the winner of the national popular election to be certain he or she wins the presidency. This will take effect if sufficient additional states join to increase their present strength of 165 electoral votes to 270. Change by reallocating electoral votes is probably unlikely, as well, since those who benefit from the present system must vote to change it.
For the House of Representatives, constitutional change is not required to eliminate anti-democratic, partisan congressional redistricting (gerrymandering) within states. Indeed, seven states limit this partisan role of the legislature by independent or bipartisan redistricting commissions, and four states employ nonbinding independent commissions. However, redistricting is still performed by the legislature in the remaining 32 states with more than one district. Again, change is unlikely in these states, since the party in control would have to vote against its own advantage.
So we are mostly stuck with these anti-democratic forces within the voting system leading to minority government in favor of super wealthy families. Obviously, when the Electoral College Trumped (so to speak) the majority of the general electorate, it accomplished the opposite of the proposed function of protecting the public from election of an unfit candidate. The resultant new administration and changes in the Supreme Court will further enhance the ability of the right wing super wealthy for unrestrained spending on lobbying, political campaigns, and manipulation of public opinion. In the meantime, we will be forced to watch the progress of decades erode as we pin our hopes on the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact and on demographics.
Sources
Editorial Board. “Donald Trump’s Lies About the Popular Vote”. New York Times. Nov. 28, 2016.
Ingraham, Christopher. “How to Steal an Election”. Washington Post.com/wonkblog. Mar. 1, 2015.
Schulman, Marc. Why the Electoral College. Http://www.historycentral.com.
United States Presidential Election 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016. Wikipedia.
United States Senate Elections 2012, 2014, 2016. Wikipedia.
United States House of Representative Elections 2012, 2014, 2016. Wikipedia.