9.7 Myths about Proliferation of Candidates, Absolute Majorities, and Breakdown of the Two-Party System

Tara Ross, an opponent of the National Popular Vote compact, objects to the compact by saying:

“The compact contemplated by [the National Popular Vote bill] would give the presidency to the candidate winning the ‘largest national popular vote total.’ Note that it says the ‘largest’ total.’ It is not looking for a majority winner.”[233]

John Samples of the Cato Institute, an opponent of the National Popular Vote compact, has said:

“NPV does not necessarily impose election by a majority. If a plurality suffices for election, a majority of voters may have chosen someone other than the winner.”[234] [Emphasis added]

Both of these observations apply equally to the current system.

Nothing in the U.S. Constitution requires that a candidate receive an absolute majority of the national popular vote in order to become President. The following 14 Presidents have been elected with less than a majority of the popular vote:

• James Polk,
• Zachary Taylor,
• James Buchanan,
• Abraham Lincoln (1860),
• Rutherford Hayes,
• James Garfield,
• Grover Cleveland (twice),
• Benjamin Harrison,
• Woodrow Wilson (twice),
• Harry Truman,
• John Kennedy,
• Richard Nixon (1968),
• Bill Clinton (twice), and
• George W. Bush (2000).

Nothing in the law of any state requires that a candidate receive an absolute majority of the state’s popular vote in order to win all of that state’s electoral votes. In fact, it is common, under existing state laws, for a presidential candidate to win all of a state’s electoral votes without receiving an absolute majority of the state’s popular vote. In 2008, no candidate received an absolute majority of the popular vote in four states. In 1992, no candidate received an absolute majority of the popular vote in 49 states.[235]

The public seems content with elections that are conducted on the basis that the candidate who receives the most popular votes wins the office. That is how the vast majority of elections are conducted in the United States.

The National Popular Vote plan reflects the nation’s consensus that the winner of an election should be the candidate who receives the most popular votes. There was certainly no outcry from the public, the media, Congress, or state legislators when Truman (1948), Kennedy (1960), Nixon (1968), or Clinton (1992 and 1996) were elected with less than an absolute majority of the national popular vote.

If, at some time in the future, the public demands that an absolute majority be required for election to office, that desire can be accommodated at that time.

Footnotes

Tara Ross complains that the National Popular Vote plan does not require an absolute majority of the national popular vote to win.[236]

Ross’ criticism applies equally to the current system. There is no provision in current law for a run-off when no presidential candidate receives an absolute majority of the national popular vote.

Moreover, there is no provision in any state today for a run-off when no presidential candidate receives an absolute majority of the state’s popular vote. In fact, it is common, under existing state laws, for a presidential candidate to win all of a state’s electoral votes without receiving an absolute majority of the state’s popular vote. For example, in 2008, no candidate received an absolute majority of the popular vote in four states.

Tara Ross says:

“States that have agreed to participate in NPV can’t force the other states to take any particular action—including a runoff or other secondary election procedure.”[237]

After the 1992 election in which no candidate received an absolute majority of the popular vote in 49 states,[238] we cannot recall any demand from legislators, the public, the media, or anyone else for a run-off presidential election.

The National Popular Vote compact operates in a manner consistent with the widely held view in the United States that the winner of an election should be the candidate who receives the most popular votes (that is, a plurality).

Note that traditional run-off elections present a number of difficulties. A run-off election would be expensive to administer. It is already difficult to recruit the mass of citizen volunteers needed to operate elections. Given that the President has to be inaugurated on January 20 and that the Electoral College meets in mid-December, it is already difficult to finish the initial counting of votes (and also conduct recounts, litigate disputes, and conduct required audits) in the limited amount of time available after Election Day in November. Turnout in a run-off election could be low. Perhaps most importantly, a run-off election would significantly alter the dynamics of financing of presidential campaigns because it would tilt the playing field in favor of the candidate who is in a position to raise vast amounts of additional money on very short notice.[239]

If, at some time in the future, the public demands run-offs, that change can be implemented at that time.

Footnotes

Tara Ross, an opponent of the National Popular Vote plan, predicts that a national popular vote would lead to a proliferation of candidates and a fracturing of the electorate, and that Presidents would be elected with only 15% of the vote:

“[The National Popular Vote plan] is not even looking for a minimum plurality. Thus, a candidate could win with only 15 percent of votes nationwide.”[240]

We do not have to speculate as to whether Ross’ prediction is likely to materialize, because we can refer to the nation’s actual experience in the numerous elections that have been conducted in which the winner was the candidate who received the most popular votes.

If an Electoral College type of arrangement were essential for avoiding Ross’ conjectured outcome, we should see evidence of this outcome in elections that did not employ an Electoral College.

When elections are conducted in which the winner is the candidate who receives the most popular votes, candidates do not, in actual practice, win the office with low percentages of the vote (and certainly not percentages such as 15%).

In the 975 general elections for Governor in the United States between 1948 and 2011:[241]

• 90% of the winning candidates received more than 50% of the vote,
• 98% of the winning candidates received more than 45% of the vote,
• 99% of the winning candidates received more than 40% of the vote, and
• 100% of the winning candidates received more than 35% of the vote.

There were only 25 general elections (out of 975) for Governor between 1948 and 2011 in which the winning candidate received less than 45% of the popular vote, as shown in table 9.11.

Table 9.11 The 25 general elections for Governor between 1948 and 2011 (out of 975) in which the winning candidate received less than 45% of the vote

Over half of the elections in table 9.11 (13 of 25) were in small states (Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont).

Elections for U.S. Senate, other statewide offices, Congress, state legislature, and other offices confirm this pattern. In the real world, there are never any 15% winners in general elections in which the winner is the candidate with the most votes. There is no proliferation of candidates. There is no fracturing of the electorate.

Moreover, elections in other countries around the world show a similar pattern.

Duverger’s law asserts that a plurality-rule election system tends to favor a two-party system. Maurice Duverger, the French sociologist who observed this tendency in election systems around the world, suggests that plurality voting favors a two-party system because political groups with broadly similar platforms tend to form alliances because it increases their chances of winning office. Voters generally desert weak parties or candidates on the grounds that they have no chance of winning. In practice, ordinary plurality voting discourages the formation of niche parties and candidacies by rewarding the formation of broad coalitions in which various groups and interests join together in order to win the most votes (and thereby win office).

The reason that ordinary plurality voting has this effect is that a vote cast for a splinter candidate frequently produces the politically counter-productive effect of helping the major-party candidate whose views are diametrically opposite of those of the voter. For example, votes cast for Bob Barr (the Libertarian Party candidate for President in 2008) enabled Barack Obama to win the electoral votes of North Carolina,[242] and votes cast for Ralph Nader (the Green Party candidate) in 2000 enabled George W. Bush to win the electoral votes of Florida and New Hampshire.[243]

Ross’ criticism of the National Popular Vote plan concerning third-party candidates is an example of a criticism that actually applies more to the current state-by-state winner-take-all system than the National Popular Vote plan.

Under the current system of electing the President, minor-party candidates have significantly affected the outcome in 38% (six out of 17) of the presidential elections between the end of World War II and 2012. Specifically, minor-party candidates affected the outcome by either shifting states from one candidate to another or winning electoral votes outright in the 1948, 1968, 1980, 1992, 1996, and 2000 presidential elections.

Segregationists such as Strom Thurmond and George Wallace each won electoral votes in various Southern states. Thurmond won 39 electoral votes in 1948, and George Wallace won 46 electoral votes in 1968. Candidates such as John Anderson (1980), Ross Perot (1992 and 1996), and Ralph Nader (2000) each managed to affect the national outcome by switching electoral votes in numerous states.

None of these third-party candidates had any reasonable expectation of winning the most popular votes nationwide. The reason that the current system has encouraged so many minor-party candidacies is that a third-party candidate has 51 separate opportunities to find particular states that he might win outright or where he might be able to shift electoral votes from one major party to another.

Tara Ross writes:

“The most likely consequence of a change to a direct popular vote is the breakdown of the two-party system.”[244]

Ross’ prediction can be tested against actual historical facts.

In 1787, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island conducted popular elections for the office of Governor.[245]

Today, 100% of the states conduct a direct popular vote for Governor. Yet, after over 5,000 direct popular elections for Governor since 1789, the two-party system has yet to collapse.

The two-party system in the United States (which dominates the electoral landscape for the vast majority of elective offices in the country) is not sustained by the existence of the state-by-state winner-take-all rule for filling the single office of the Presidency.

About three-quarters of the elections for Governor occur in non-presidential years—that is, they stand apart entirely from the presidential election cycle.

Returning to the history of presidential elections, only three states had winner-take-all statutes in the nation’s first presidential election in 1789. Only three states used the winner-take-all rule in 1792 and 1796. Given that political parties first emerged in the 1796 presidential election, it can hardly be argued that the existence of the state-by-state winner-take-all rule in just three states was the force that created the two-party system in the United States.

Instead, the two-party system is the consequence of the plurality voting system in which the candidate who receives the most popular votes wins the office.

There is no reason to expect the emergence of some unique, new political dynamic that would promote multiple candidacies if the President were elected in the same manner as virtually every other elected official in the United States.

What can be said about third-party candidacies in presidential elections is that the current system often perversely discriminates against third-party candidates who have a broad national base of support, while encouraging regional third-party candidates. In 1948, Henry Wallace (a leftist candidate for President) and Strom Thurmond (a pro-segregation candidate for President) each received 1.2 million popular votes. However, Strom Thurmond (whose support was concentrated in the South) won 39 electoral votes in 1948, whereas Henry Wallace (whose support was distributed more evenly throughout the county) received no electoral votes.

Ross Perot’s percentage of the national popular vote in 1992 was twice the percentage received in 1968 by George Wallace (a pro-segregation candidate). However, Perot won no electoral votes in 1992, whereas George Wallace won 46 electoral votes in 1968.

Although Ross Perot received eight times Strom Thurmond’s percentage of the popular vote in 1948, Perot won no electoral votes in 1992, while Thurmond won 39 electoral votes.[246]

The current state-by-state winner-take-all system certainly does not prevent the proliferation of candidates; however, it does perversely reward regional third-party candidacies while punishing broad-based third-party candidacies.

Some argue that third parties are inherently undesirable and that the election system should be skewed so as to strengthen and favor the two-party system. Even if one subscribes to this viewpoint, it is difficult to see what public purpose is served by the current system’s perverse discrimination in favor of regionally divisive third parties and against broad-based third parties with nationwide support.

Footnotes

In an article entitled “The Electoral College Is Brilliant, and We Would Be Insane to Abolish It,” Walter Hickey writes:

“Without the electoral college system, a President could be elected with a plurality rather than an outright majority.

“Without it—and with a compelling third party—someone could become president with only 34 percent of the vote. When 66 percent of the country voted against the President, that doesn't scream stability. How many governments has Italy had in the past fifty years?”[247] [Emphasis added]

Hickey appears to be unaware that nothing in the U.S. Constitution requires that a candidate receive an absolute majority of the national popular vote in order to become President. The following 14 Presidents have been elected with less than a majority of the popular vote: James K. Polk, Zachary Taylor, James Buchanan, Abraham Lincoln (1860), Rutherford B. Hayes, James Garfield, Grover Cleveland (twice), Benjamin Harrison, Woodrow Wilson (twice), Harry Truman, John Kennedy, Richard Nixon (1968), Bill Clinton (twice), and George W. Bush (2000).

Hickey also appears to be unaware that nothing in the law of any state requires that a candidate receive an absolute majority of the state’s popular vote in order to win all of that state’s electoral votes. In fact, presidential candidates frequently win a state’s electoral votes without receiving an absolute majority of the state’s popular vote. In 1992, no candidate received an absolute majority of the popular vote in 49 states.[248] In 2008, no candidate received an absolute majority of the popular vote in four states.

Lincoln was elected with 39% of the nationwide popular vote in 1860. There is nothing in the current system to prevent another occurrence of a candidate being elected President with 39% of the nationwide popular vote. A June 1992 nationwide poll showed that Ross Perot had 39% support, incumbent President George H.W. Bush had 31%, and Bill Clinton had 25%.[249]

Footnotes