IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/pubcho/v187y2021i3d10.1007_s11127-020-00787-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ignoring the Electoral College: why public choice economists understate the probability of decisive voters

Author

Listed:
  • Dwight R. Lee

    (Ball State University)

Abstract

When considering the probability of voters being decisive in presidential elections, public choice economists typically proceed as if the probability can reasonably be approximated by assuming that the winner is determined by simple majority vote. It is well known the Electoral College can cause presidential candidates to lose elections despite winning the popular vote (an election inversion). But the Electoral College’s ability to increase the probability of some voters being decisive effectively has been ignored, despite such increases having occurred in 10 of the last 49 presidential elections. By examining the influence of the Electoral College in most of the presidential elections from 1824 to 2016, I explain and give examples of how the probabilities of some voters being decisive were elevated above what they would have been under majority rule, with the increase being truly astounding in several cases. The examples do not weaken the importance of expressive voting, but our understanding of such voting is improved by considering the probability effects of the Electoral College on voter decisiveness.

Suggested Citation

  • Dwight R. Lee, 2021. "Ignoring the Electoral College: why public choice economists understate the probability of decisive voters," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 187(3), pages 439-454, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:pubcho:v:187:y:2021:i:3:d:10.1007_s11127-020-00787-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s11127-020-00787-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11127-020-00787-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11127-020-00787-5?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nicholas Miller, 2012. "Why the Electoral College is good for political science (and public choice)," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 150(1), pages 1-25, January.
    2. Nathaniel Beck, 1975. "A note on the probability of a tied election," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 75-79, September.
    3. Andrew Gelman & Nate Silver & Aaron Edlin, 2012. "What Is The Probability Your Vote Will Make A Difference?," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 50(2), pages 321-326, April.
    4. David Stromberg, 2008. "How the Electoral College Influences Campaigns and Policy: The Probability of Being Florida," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(3), pages 769-807, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lirong Xia, 2020. "How Likely Are Large Elections Tied?," Papers 2011.03791, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2021.
    2. Dan Usher, 2014. "An alternative explanation of the chance of casting a pivotal vote," Rationality and Society, , vol. 26(1), pages 105-138, February.
    3. Jonathan R. Cervas & Bernard Grofman, 2017. "Why noncompetitive states are so important for understanding the outcomes of competitive elections: the Electoral College 1868–2016," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 173(3), pages 251-265, December.
    4. Olivier Mouzon & Thibault Laurent & Michel Breton & Dominique Lepelley, 2019. "Exploring the effects of national and regional popular vote Interstate compact on a toy symmetric version of the Electoral College: an electoral engineering perspective," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 179(1), pages 51-95, April.
    5. Ali I. Ozkes & M. Remzi Sanver, 2024. "Axiomatization of plurality refinements," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 200(1), pages 285-292, July.
    6. Le Breton, Michel & Lepelley, Dominique & Smaoui, Hatem, 2012. "The Probability of Casting a Decisive Vote: From IC to IAC trhough Ehrhart's Polynomials and Strong Mixing," IDEI Working Papers 722, Institut d'Économie Industrielle (IDEI), Toulouse.
    7. Drometer, Marcus & Méango, Romuald, 2015. "Electoral cycles, partisan effects and U.S. immigration policies," VfS Annual Conference 2015 (Muenster): Economic Development - Theory and Policy 113052, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    8. Hungerman, Daniel & Rinz, Kevin & Weninger, Tim & Yoon, Chungeun, 2018. "Political campaigns and church contributions," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 403-426.
    9. Casas, Agustin, 2020. "The electoral benefits of unemployment, clientelism and distributive politics," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    10. Londregan, John & Vindigni, Andrea, 2006. "Voting as a Credible Threat," Papers 10-04-2006, Princeton University, Research Program in Political Economy.
    11. Bernecker, Andreas, 2014. "Do politicians shirk when reelection is certain? Evidence from the German parliament," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 55-70.
    12. Subhasish Chowdhury & Dan Kovenock & Roman Sheremeta, 2013. "An experimental investigation of Colonel Blotto games," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 52(3), pages 833-861, April.
    13. Galasso, Vincenzo & Nannicini, Tommaso, 2011. "Competing on Good Politicians," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 105(1), pages 79-99, February.
    14. M. Roth, 2011. "Resource allocation and voter calculus in a multicandidate election," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 148(3), pages 337-351, September.
    15. Denter, Philipp & Sisak, Dana, 2015. "Do polls create momentum in political competition?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 1-14.
    16. Lirong Xia, 2022. "Most Equitable Voting Rules," Papers 2205.14838, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2023.
    17. Frederico Finan & Maurizio Mazzocco, 2021. "Electoral Incentives and the Allocation of Public Funds," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 19(5), pages 2467-2512.
    18. Dan Kovenock & Brian Roberson, 2009. "Is the 50-State Strategy Optimal?," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 21(2), pages 213-236, April.
    19. Rhode, Paul W. & Snyder, Jr., James M. & Strumpf, Koleman, 2018. "The arsenal of democracy: Production and politics during WWII," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 145-161.
    20. Thomas Schwartz, 1987. "Your vote counts on account of the way it is counted: An institutional solution to the paradox of not voting," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 54(2), pages 101-121, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Electoral College; Decisive voters; Decisive states; Expressive voting; Binomial distributions;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:pubcho:v:187:y:2021:i:3:d:10.1007_s11127-020-00787-5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.