In Honor of the Iowa Caucus ClusterF*ck, here's what else is wrong with our elections

By Best in Moderation 

So we've now seen what happens when you lean on an old system not updated in decades, and try to modernize it without changing the basis. Iowa was a complete disaster, and it has to do with our out-dated and out-moded election models in general.

There is the basic argument that we spend too much time campaigning, and the argument that either caucuses or primaries aren't fair or standard, so we can't really learn much from them. But today I want to focus on the third major problem: that how we elect people is not at all representative of the will of the people.

I'll make one exception right out of the bat: the House of Representatives is almost perfectly in line with the population it represents. But even there, we have a problem with gerrymandered districts, so even a good population distribution can get swept away by administrative messing about.

Now for the main course:

The Data:
We need to establish some figures before we go further, and that is population statistics and their corresponding connection to electoral items. So here's a chart of the US population with some of those figures filled in:

State	Population	Pop Electoral Vote	% USA Pop
California	39,512,223	718,404	11.96%
Texas	28,995,881	763,050	8.68%
Florida	21,477,737	740,611	6.44%
New York	19,453,561	670,812	5.91%
Pennsylvania	12,801,989	640,099	3.87%
Illinois	12,671,821	633,591	3.85%
Ohio	11,689,100	649,394	3.53%
Georgia	10,617,423	663,589	3.18%
North Carolina	10,488,084	699,206	3.14%
Michigan	9,986,857	624,179	3.02%
New Jersey	8,882,190	634,442	2.69%
Virginia	8,535,519	656,578	2.58%
Washington	7,614,893	634,574	2.28%
Arizona	7,278,717	661,702	2.17%
Massachusetts	6,949,503	626,591	2.09%
Tennessee	6,833,174	620,834	2.05%
Indiana	6,732,219	612,020	2.02%
Missouri	6,137,428	613,743	1.85%
Maryland	6,045,680	604,568	1.83%
Wisconsin	5,822,434	582,243	1.76%
Colorado	5,758,736	639,860	1.72%
Minnesota	5,639,632	563,963	1.70%
South Carolina	5,148,714	572,079	1.54%
Alabama	4,903,185	544,798	1.48%
Louisiana	4,648,794	581,099	1.41%
Kentucky	4,467,673	558,459	1.35%
Oregon	4,217,737	602,534	1.27%
Oklahoma	3,956,971	565,282	1.19%
Connecticut	3,565,287	509,327	1.08%
Utah	3,205,958	534,326	0.96%
Iowa	3,155,070	525,845	0.95%
Nevada	3,080,156	513,359	0.92%
Arkansas	3,017,825	502,967	0.91%
Mississippi	2,976,149	496,024	0.90%
Kansas	2,913,314	485,552	0.88%
New Mexico	2,096,829	419,366	0.63%
Nebraska	1,934,408	386,882	0.58%
Idaho	1,792,065	446,516	0.53%
West Virginia	1,787,147	358,435	0.55%
Hawaii	1,415,872	353,968	0.43%
New Hampshire	1,359,711	339,928	0.41%
Maine	1,344,212	336,053	0.40%
Montana	1,068,778	356,259	0.32%
Rhode Island	1,059,361	264,840	0.32%
Delaware	973,764	324,588	0.29%
South Dakota	884,659	294,886	0.27%
North Dakota	762,062	254,021	0.23%
Alaska	731,545	243,848	0.22%
Vermont	623,989	207,996	0.19%
Wyoming	578,759	192,920	0.17%

The Analysis

There is a serious issue with population spread and representation in both the Electoral College and the Senate.

25 US states come in at below 1.4% of the US population, with Kentucky as the most populous of the bunch at 1.35% and Wyoming at the bottom with 0.17%

25 states come at above 1.4%, with the lowest being Louisiana at 1.41% and the highest being California, with a whopping 11.96%.

This alone means that Wyoming has 70 times the voting power per person for Senate as California...

But it gets stranger:

Population wise, the top 25 states have five times the population of the lower 25, and has been that way consistently since at least 2010, with the population of the top 25 growing at a 25% faster rate and in absolute terms 6.5 times more.

For the electoral vote, you need 1.6 voters in the top 25 states to equal 1 voter in the lower 25. California gets it hardest, with 3.7 voters being required to balance 1 Wyoming voter.

The population of the top 25 states contains 82.75% of the US population. The population of the lowest 25 states contain 15.95% of the US population. (Territories and DC make up the remainder).

This means that 50% of the Senate is chosen by 16% of the population, and the candidate for president chosen by 37% of the population equals the one chosen by 63%.

The Impact

Direct impact is pretty clear: we do not remotely have a Representative Republic. Not only is half of our Legislative branch extremely tilted towards less populous states, the Executive is tilted strongly in their favor as well.

This means that issues that have strong national support can still easily be ignored if it does not matter to the lower population states. And it means that those who live in more populated states actually have far less representation in both Congress and the White House.

But also, the Senate is filled with a party who represents but a fraction of the population, yet retains the power to defy the will of the people even on issues where the people are 70, 80, or 90% for its opposite. This is a simple matter of math: if they only need to please 16% to stay in power, this is clearly a win for them, and it takes far more effort for the other party to satisfy 83%.

More Data

Below is a table of states and how they voted in the last presidential election.

	Hillary Clinton Democratic			Donald Trump Republican
State or district	#	%	Electoral votes	#	%	Electoral votes
Alabama	729,547	34.36%	–	1,318,255	62.08%	9
Alaska	116,454	36.55%	–	163,387	51.28%	3
Arizona	1,161,167	45.13%	–	1,252,401	48.67%	11
Arkansas	380,494	33.65%	–	684,872	60.57%	6
California	8,753,788	61.73%	55	4,483,810	31.62%	–
Colorado	1,338,870	48.16%	9	1,202,484	43.25%	–
Connecticut	897,572	54.57%	7	673,215	40.93%	–
Delaware	235,603	53.09%	3	185,127	41.72%	–
District of Columbia	282,830	90.48%	3	12,723	4.07%	–
Florida	4,504,975	47.82%	–	4,617,886	49.02%	29
Georgia	1,877,963	45.64%	–	2,089,104	50.77%	16
Hawaii	266,891	62.22%	3	128,847	30.03%	–
Idaho	189,765	27.49%	–	409,055	59.26%	4
Illinois	3,090,729	55.83%	20	2,146,015	38.76%	–
Indiana	1,033,126	37.91%	–	1,557,286	56.82%	11
Iowa	653,669	41.74%	–	800,983	51.15%	6
Kansas	427,005	36.05%	–	671,018	56.65%	6
Kentucky	628,854	32.68%	–	1,202,971	62.52%	8
Louisiana	780,154	38.45%	–	1,178,638	58.09%	8
Maine (at-lg)	357,735	47.83%	2	335,593	44.87%	–
Maine, 1st	212,774	53.96%	1	154,384	39.15%	–
Maine, 2nd	144,817	40.98%	–	181,177	51.26%	1
Maryland	1,677,928	60.33%	10	943,169	33.91%	–
Massachusetts	1,995,196	60.01%	11	1,090,893	32.81%	–
Michigan	2,268,839	47.27%	–	2,279,543	47.50%	16
Minnesota	1,367,716	46.44%	10	1,322,951	44.92%	–
Mississippi	485,131	40.11%	–	700,714	57.94%	6
Missouri	1,071,068	38.14%	–	1,594,511	56.77%	10
Montana	177,709	35.75%	–	279,240	56.17%	3
Nebraska (at-lg)	284,494	33.70%	–	495,961	58.75%	2
Nebraska, 1st	100,126	35.46%	–	158,626	56.18%	1
Nebraska, 2nd	131,030	44.92%	–	137,564	47.16%	1
Nebraska, 3rd	53,290	19.73%	–	199,657	73.92%	1
Nevada	539,260	47.50%	6	512,058	45.98%	–
New Hampshire	348,526	46.98%	4	345,790	46.61%	–
New Jersey	2,148,278	54.99%	14	1,601,933	41.00%	–
New Mexico	385,234	48.26%	5	319,667	40.04%	–
New York	4,556,124	59.01%	29	2,819,534	36.52%	–
North Carolina	2,189,316	46.17%	–	2,362,631	49.83%	15
North Dakota	93,758	27.23%	–	216,794	62.96%	3
Ohio	2,394,164	43.56%	–	2,841,005	51.69%	18
Oklahoma	420,375	28.93%	–	949,136	65.32%	7
Oregon	1,002,106	50.07%	7	782,403	39.09%	–
Pennsylvania	2,926,441	47.46%	–	2,970,733	48.18%	20
Rhode Island	252,525	54.41%	4	180,543	38.90%	–
South Carolina	855,373	40.67%	–	1,155,389	54.94%	9
South Dakota	117,458	31.74%	–	227,721	61.53%	3
Tennessee	870,695	34.72%	–	1,522,925	60.72%	11
Texas	3,877,868	43.24%	–	4,685,047	52.23%	36
Utah	310,676	27.46%	–	515,231	45.54%	6
Vermont	178,573	56.68%	3	95,369	30.27%	–
Virginia	1,981,473	49.73%	13	1,769,443	44.41%	–
Washington	1,742,718	52.54%	8	1,221,747	36.83%	–
West Virginia	188,794	26.43%	–	489,371	68.50%	5
Wisconsin	1,382,536	46.45%	–	1,405,284	47.22%	10
Wyoming	55,973	21.63%	–	174,419	67.40%	3

Trump won 16/25 of the least populous states, and 14/25 of the most populous states. The voting population of the lower 25 was 22 million (16.9%) with 120 electoral votes (22.6%) and the voting population of the upper 25 was 108.3 million (83.1%) with 411 electoral votes (77.4%).

The Analysis

The lower 25 states have a far outsized influence on EC votes, as noted above. Additionally, population statistics shows that it takes 183,396 people for one EC vote in the lower 25 states, and 263,514 people per EC vote in the upper 25, a difference of 144% (or 44% more). This is hardly in line with the one person = one vote ideology.

It gets worse. For Clinton, in the lower 25 states, it took 214,148 voters per EC against Trump's 164,495, an increase of 30%. In the upper 25 states, it took 312,411 voters Clinton to 224,652 Trump, an increase of 39%. That means the upper lower range of vote per EC, from Clinton's most to Trump's least, is 89%, almost double.

Overall, 66,495,553 million people voted for Clinton and 63,816,233 people voted for Trump. In terms of EC votes, it took 146498 Clinton voters for one EC vote and 136,477 Trump voters for one EC vote. This is a difference of 107%.

48.83% of Trump voters did not get a single EC vote, 22,328,000 million people. 44.18% of Clinton voters did not get a single EC vote, 32,883,000 million people. This is a difference of 147%, or 47% more people not counted for EC votes if they voted for Clinton than for Trump. 

Out of their totals, 49.45% of Clinton's voters did not have their vote count in the EC, and 34.99% of Trump's voters did not have their vote count in the EC. This is a 41% more against Clinton.

The Impact

Having half your voters not be counted is significant, as is having the disadvantage on every statistic. Trump votes counted on average 42% more than a Clinton vote, in every area. But it was most significant through low population states, almost needing 2 Clinton voters to 1 Trump voter to get an EC vote. 

Applying this statistic to the total votes, Clinton would have had to have 90,619,051 voters to Trump's 63,816,233 simply to break even in the EC, if all states were still won by the same candidate. That's almost 30 million people, not just the 3 million Democrats were so upset about. 

What it means is that If growth remains relatively stable for all states, and the trend of states voting for certain parties remains relatively stable, Democrats cannot win without a massively outsized voter total. That's absurd, and it's definitely not Representative. 

All of this leads to candidates having to focus on states, not population, to win. And not the most populated states either. They have to pitch to the minority of voters, or win 42% more of the vote. 

What a Clusterf*ck.