Strategic Consequences of the Electoral College

Rules Each state appoints “Electors” equal to the number of combined seats in the House and Senate Electors meet in own states Electors cast two votes (P and VP) MAJORITY (270 votes) to win If no winner, House of Reps. chooses among top 3 candidates, one vote per state.

Consequences for strategy? Focus on electorally rich (populous) states Focus on “swing” states

Targeted States, 2004 StateVisitsAds? Difference in two-party percent of vote OH45X2.1% IA31X0.67% PA30X2.5% WI28X0.38% FL23X5.0% MN19X3.5% MI17X3.5% NM12X0.8% WV11X12.9% CO10X4.8% NH10X1.3% MO77.2% NV7X2.4% NC512.4%

Problems with the EC? Anti-Majoritarian –Popular vote winner can lose presidency –Can have House of Reps, one state per vote, elect president –Can have “Faithless Electors” Unequal weighting of votes –Voters in small states mathematically overrepresented –Partisan minorities’ votes “don’t count” Campaign only targets some voters –Turnout is higher in battleground states –But rhetoric is national –But battleground states demographically representative –But no difference in voter efficacy

Positive aspects of EC? Forces candidates to create broad electoral coalitions Exaggerates margin of victory, making governing easier Encourages 2 party system

Simple popular vote: Effects on campaign strategy Greater cost Media markets replace states as focus of resource concentration Favors Republicans?

Targeting swing voters in a popular presidential election Media markets, grouped into equal population units Percent of swing vote Cost per ratings point per 10,000 swing voters Top 1032%$ Middle 4033%$84.10 Bottom 15536%$72.30

Turning out “the base” in a popular election Media markets Percent of Dem. vote Percent of GOP vote Cost per ratings point Democratic base $14,951 Competitive $11,186 Republican base $10,829