Most Americans have little knowledge about why we elect the president through the Electoral College. This complex system that requires understanding the impact of 51 different elections on the outcome of the presidential election leads many Americans to desire the simple effectiveness of the popular vote method. Previous scholarship highlights a majority of Americans wanting to replace our current system with the popular vote. Political science research lacks a clear understanding of the impact of partisan self-interest on views of changing the presidential election method. In this paper we look at public opinion surveys over the last 45 years and find there was no clear partisan difference in views of changing the system before the electoral inversion of 2000. We argue that partisan self-interest was activated because of this electoral inversion. The inversion of 2016 led to a hardening of opinions on replacing the Electoral College with the popular vote.
AbramowitzA. I.WebsterS. W. (2018). Negative Partisanship: Why Americans dislike parties but behave like rabid partisans. Political Psychology, 39(S1), 119–135. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12479
2.
AldrichJ.ReiflerJ.MungerM. C. (2014). Sophisticated and myopic? Citizen preferences for electoral college reform. Public Choice, 158(3–4), 541–558. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-013-0056-z
3.
AnsonI. G. (2018). Partisanship, political knowledge, and the dunning-kruger effect. Political Psychology, 39(5), 1173–1192. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12490
BiggersD. R. (2019). Does partisan self-interest dictate support for election reform? Experimental evidence on the willingness of citizens to alter the costs of voting for electoral gain. Political Behavior, 41(4), 1025–1046. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-018-9481-5
6.
BlaisA.LaslierJ. F.PoinasF.Van Der StraetenK. (2015). Citizens’ preferences about voting rules: Self-interest, ideology, and sincerity. Public Choice, 164(3–4), 423–442. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-015-0287-2
7.
BowlerS.DonovanT. (2007). Reasoning about institutional change: Winners, losers and support for electoral reforms. British Journal of Political Science, 37(3), 455–476. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123407000245
8.
BowlerS.DonovanT. (2016). A partisan model of electoral reform: Voter identification laws and confidence in state elections. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 16(3), 340–361. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532440015624102
9.
BowlerS.DonovanT.KarpJ. A. (2007). Enraged or engaged? Preferences for direct citizen participation in affluent democracies. Political Research Quarterly, 60(3), 351–362. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912907304108
10.
CarpiniM. X. D.KeeterS. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. Yale University Press.
11.
CervasJ. R.GrofmanB. (2019). Are presidential inversions inevitable? Comparing eight counterfactual rules for electing the US president. Social Science Quarterly, 100(4), 1322–1342. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12634
12.
ColantoniC. S.LevesqueT. J.OrdeshookP. C. (1975). Campaign resource allocations under the electoral college. American Political Science Review, 69(1), 141–154. https://doi.org/10.2307/1957891
13.
DahlR. A. (2003). How democratic is the American Constitution?Yale University Press.
14.
DruckmanJ. N.PetersonE.SlothuusR. (2013). How elite partisan polarization affects public opinion formation. American Political Science Review, 107(1), 57–79. https://doi:10.1017/S0003055412000500
15.
FragaB. L. (2018). The turnout gap: Race, ethnicity, and political inequality in a diversifying America. Cambridge University Press.
16.
GronkeP.HicksW. D.McKeeS. C.StewartC.IIIDunhamJ. (2019). Voter ID laws: A view from the public. Social Science Quarterly, 100(1), 215–232. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12541
17.
HershE. (2020). Politics is for power: How to move beyond political hobbyism, take action, and make real change. Simon and Schuster.
18.
HibbingJ. R.Theiss-MorseE. (2002). Stealth democracy: Americans’ beliefs about how government should work. Cambridge University Press.
19.
HillD.McKeeS. C. (2005). The electoral college, mobilization, and turnout in the 2000 presidential election. American Politics Research, 33(5), 700–725. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X04271902
20.
HopkinsD. (2017). Red fighting blue: How geography and electoral rules polarize American politics. Cambridge University Press.
21.
HopkinsD. J. (2018). The increasingly United States: How and why American political behavior nationalized. University of Chicago Press.
22.
HuberG. A.MalhotraN. (2017). Political homophily in social relationships: Evidence from online dating behavior. The Journal of Politics, 79(1), 269–283. https://doi.org/10.1086/687533
23.
IyengarS.LelkesY.LevenduskyM.MalhotraN.WestwoodS. J. (2019). The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science, 22(1), 129–146. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034
KalmoeN. P.MasonL. (2022). Radical American partisanship: Mapping violent hostility, its causes, and the consequences for democracy. University of Chicago Press.
KarpJ. A.TolbertC. J. (2010). Polls and elections: Support for nationalizing presidential elections. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 40(4), 771–793. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5705.2010.03811.x
28.
KinderD. R.KalmoeN. P. (2017). Neither liberal nor conservative. University of Chicago Press.
29.
KrupnikovY.RyanJ. B. (2022). The other divide: Polarization and disengagement in American politics. Cambridge University Press.
30.
LaymanG. C.CarseyT. M. (2002). Party polarization and “conflict extension” in the American electorate. American Journal of Political Science, 46(4), 786–802. https://doi.org/10.2307/3088434
31.
LevenduskyM.SteculaD. (2021). We need to talk: How cross-party dialogue reduces affective polarization (elements in experimental political science). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009042192
32.
LipsitzK. (2009). The consequences of battleground and “spectator” state residency for political participation. Political Behavior, 31(2), 187–209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-008-9068-7
33.
MasonL. (2018). Uncivil agreement: How politics became our identity. University of Chicago Press.
34.
McCarthyD. (2019). Partisanship vs. principle: Understanding public opinion on same-day registration. Public Opinion Quarterly, 83(3), 568–583. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfz027
35.
McCarthyD. (2022). Limits of partisanship in citizen preferences on redistricting. Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy, 21(2), 155–170. https://doi.org/10.1089/elj.2020.0709
36.
McCarthyD.SantucciJ. (2021). Ranked choice voting as a generational issue in modern American politics. Politics and Policy, 49(1), 33–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12390
37.
McKenzieM. J. (2009). Attitudes toward electoral college reform: Understanding opinion formation on complicated public policy issues. Politics and Policy, 37(2), 265–288. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2009.00172.x
38.
MedvicS. K.SchousenM. M.YostB. A. (2023). In MedvicS. K.SchousenM. M.YostB. A. (Eds), Introduction: Studying nationalization in are all politics nationalized? Evidence from the 2020 campaigns in Pennsylvania. Temple University Press.
39.
MillerN. R. (2012). Why the Electoral College is good for political science (and public choice). Public Choice, 150(1–2), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-011-9874-z
40.
MoskowitzD. (2021). Local News, information, and the nationalization of U.S. Elections. American Political Science Review, 115(1), 114–129. https://doi:10.1017/S0003055420000829
PachecoJ. S. (2008). Political socialization in context: The effect of political competition on youth voter turnout. Political Behavior, 30(4), 415–436. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-008-9057-x
43.
PageB. I.ShapiroR. Y. (2010). The rational public: Fifty years of trends in Americans' policy preferences. University of Chicago Press.
PanagopoulosC. (2006). Vested interests: Interest group resource allocation in presidential campaigns. Journal of Political Marketing, 5(1–2), 59–78. https://doi.org/10.1300/j199v05n01_04
46.
PattersonT. E. (2009). The vanishing voter: Public involvement in an age of uncertainty. Vintage.
47.
ShawD. R. (2008). The race to 270: The electoral college and the campaign strategies of 2000 and 2004. University of Chicago Press.
48.
TolbertC. J.SmithD. A.GreenJ. C. (2009). Strategic voting and legislative redistricting reform: District and statewide representational winners and losers. Political Research Quarterly, 62(1), 92–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912908314201
WernerH. (2020). If I'll win it, I want it: The role of instrumental considerations in explaining public support for referendums. European Journal of Political Research, 59(2), 312–330. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12358
51.
ZingherJ. N. (2022). Political choice in a polarized America: How elite polarization shapes mass behavior. Oxford University Press.
