The events of 2000 inspired renewed debate in America over the manner in which presidents are chosen, with many critics of the existing system favoring the alternative of direct popular election. These advocates of reform often argue that the strategic environment shaped by the electoral college distorts the democratic process by encouraging candidates to focus on a few politically competitive states while virtually ignoring the majority of the nation. Using empirical evidence, we evaluate the claim that the electoral college is antidemocratic due to its effect on campaign strategy. Furthermore, we consider the possible alternative strategies adopted by candidates under a hypothetical national popular presidential election. We conclude that many of the consequences of electoral college reform, unacknowledged by its proponents, would not necessarily make presidential elections substantially more democratic, and we call for additional empirical research on a topic that has heretofore been dominated by theoretical debate and speculation.
Althaus, S.L., Nardulli, P.F., & Shaw, D.R. (2002). Candidate appearances in presidential elections . Political Communication, 19, 49-72.
2.
Arterton, F.C. (1993). Campaign '92: Strategies and tactics of the candidates . In G. C. Pomper, F. C. Arterton, R. K. Baker, W. D. Burnham, K. A. Frankovic, M. R. Hershey , & W. C. McWilliams (Eds.), The Election of 1992: Reports and interpretations (pp. 74-109). Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
3.
Balz, D., & Goldstein, A. (2004, August 5). Campaigns cross paths in Midwest. The Washington Post, p. A1.
4.
Bennett, R.W. (2006). Taming the electoral college. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
5.
Berthoud, J.E. (1997). The electoral lock thesis: The weighting bias component. PS: Political Science and Politics, 30, 189-193.
6.
Best, J.A. (2004). Presidential selection: Complex problems and simple solutions. Political Science Quarterly, 119, 39-59.
7.
Cameron, C., Epstein, D., & O'Halloran, S. (1996). Do majority-minority districts maximize black substantive representation in congress? American Political Science Review, 90, 794-812.
8.
Dahl, R.A. (2003). How democratic is the American constitution? (2nd ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
9.
Destler, I.M. (1996). The myth of the electoral lock. PS: Political Science and Politics, 29, 491-494.
10.
Doherty, B.J. (2006). The politics of the permanent campaign: Presidents, fundraising, and the electoral college. Unpublished doctoral dissertation , University of California, Berkeley .
11.
Edsall, T., & Grimaldi, J.V. (2004, December 30). On Nov. 2, GOP got more bang for its billion, analysis shows. The Washington Post, p. A1.
12.
Edwards, G.C., III. (2004). Why the electoral college is bad for America. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
13.
Franz, M.M., Rivlin, J. & Goldstein, K. (2006). Much more of the same: television advertising pre- and post-BCRA. In Malbin, M. (Ed.), The election after reform: Money, politics and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
14.
Garand, J.C., & Parent, T.W. (1991). Representation, swing, and bias in U.S. presidential elections, 1872-1988. American Journal of Political Science , 35, 1011-1031.
15.
Gosnell, H.F. (1927). Getting out the vote: An experiment in the stimulation of voting. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
16.
Goux, D.J. (2006). A new battleground? Media perceptions and political reality in presidential elections, 1960-2004. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the American Political Science Association , Philadelphia, PA.
17.
Green, D.P., & Gerber A.S. (2004). Get out the vote! How to increase voter turnout . Washington, DC: Brookings Institution .
18.
Grofman, B., Brunell, T.L., & Campagna, J. (1997). Distinguishing the difference between swing ratio and bias: The U.S. electoral college. Electoral Studies, 16, 471-487.
19.
Longley, L.D., & Dana, J.D. (1992). The biases of the electoral college in the 1990s . Polity, 25, 123-145.
20.
Lublin, D. (1997). The paradox of representation: Racial gerrymandering and minority interests in Congress. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
21.
McCarty, N.M. (2000). Presidential pork: Executive veto power and distributive politics. American Political Science Review, 94, 117-129.
22.
McKee, S.C. (2002). Was turnout significantly higher in the battleground states in the 2000 presidential election?Paper presented at the annual meetings of the American Political Science Association , Boston, MA.
23.
Mebane, W.R., & Wawro, G.J. (1993). Presidential pork barrel politics. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of theMidwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.
24.
Memmott, M. (2004, September 27). Voters in Ohio give political ads a thumbs down. USA Today, p. 15A.
25.
Peirce, N.R. (2004). Foreword. In G. C. Edwards III, Why the electoral college is bad for America . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
26.
Pisik, B. (2004, November 2). Florida voters say "enough" to ads, calls, mailings. The Washington Times, p. A06.
