*While the topic is political, I think this post belongs in this sub because 1.) It critiques a positive statement about what an outcome would be under different policies 2.) It deals with rational individual choice under uncertainty and scarcity, which economists study (and many study the applications to voting) 3.) lol economics imperialism

---

Secretary Clinton WON THE POPULAR VOTE and should be President. Hillary won the popular vote. The only reason Trump "won" is because of the Electoral College.

But the Electoral College can actually give the White House to either candidate. So why not use this most undemocratic of our institutions to ensure a democratic result?

SHE WON THE POPULAR VOTE.

There is no reason Trump should be President.

"It's the 'People's Will'"

No. She won the popular vote.

https://www.change.org/p/electoral-college-electors-electoral-college-make-hillary-clinton-president-on-december-19

Disclaimer: this post does not address the merits of the Electoral College over other systems.

The following R1 rests upon two ideas: 1.) The (Downs) Paradox of Voting 2.) Institutions Matter

Acquiring information on who to vote for is costly. It takes time and brain power which are, like everything, scarce resources. Voting is costly in terms of time it takes to actually go out and register and vote, especially for the poor or those with inflexible jobs. A benefit from voting may include a feeling a civic pride or togetherness, satisfying some social norm, or a good feeling from expressing your voice, but it may also include the very very low chance that your vote is a "pivotal vote" in determining the outcome in an otherwise tie. The Paradox of Voting (Downs, 1957) suggests that a rational weighing of the costs and benefits leads to the conclusion that it is better to remain "ignorant" about voting and not participate, but nonetheless people still vote (likely for the benefits to expression and satisfying social norms). See here for more info. Bryan Caplan has also written extensively on "rational irrationality" among uniformed voters if you care to read more here.

Why do institutions matter? Because the institutionalized rules of the election process can affect how likely it is for a person to be the one who casts the "pivotal vote" or how likely that the small coalition of people they joined cast the deciding group of votes. Under the Electoral College, a state's Electoral votes cast for President, which collectively are the ones that ultimately determine who is President, are winner-take-all depending on the state's popular vote outcome (i.e. the winner of the popular vote in Michigan is awarded 16 Electoral votes in the College). (For non-Americans and those who slept during civics class, here's a primer on the Electoral College)

There are several states where it is much less likely that any one person's vote or a small group of coordinated votes will flip the result either way depending on the choice made. These states are "Solid Blue" or "Solid Red" states where most all voters understand that the popular vote will go a particular way with certainty. California and New York will always vote for the Democrat, and Texas and Montana will always vote for the Republican, for example. Since the likelihood of being the pivotal vote is nil in these states, all else equal the expected benefit to voting is smaller in Solid Blue or Red states compared to "Swing states" where it's too difficult to estimate with certainty before the votes are cast who will win. Thus, we expect turnout to be relatively depressed in "Solid" states under an Electoral College system since more potential voters do not think costly voting makes a difference in those states.

Under a national popular vote the person who receives the most total popular votes on a national scale wins, so the uncertainty surrounding who will win the popular vote is likely greater. Therefore, you may see formerly non-voters in what would have been Solid Red or Blue states believe their vote means more and choose to vote to express their "will."

The rules of the election will also influence the campaign strategy of each candidate. Under a national popular vote system, campaigns may focus more on cities where it is a more efficient use of time and money to amass popular votes rather than in more rural states where the Electoral vote per person is much higher. They would certainly spend less time in "swing states" since a vote in Ohio counts just as much in the totals as a vote in California, so their method of appealing to voters would be different.

The rules also affect where on the political spectrum a candidate places themselves. If a candidate thinks they can position themselves as center-right and win the Electoral College, they'll position themselves there. If a candidate thinks that winning the national popular vote means having to shift slightly left, in a national popular vote system they may adopt more liberal policies in their platform to win.

To put it bluntly: Under the Electoral College system, the national popular vote total is endogenous to the institutional rules of the Electoral College and is thus a meaningless statistic in terms of gauging the Will of the People. The popular vote cannot tell us anything about the distribution of the beliefs of the people as a whole as many people chose not to vote because the rules say that the national popular vote doesn't determine anything. If the national popular vote determines nothing, can you be blamed for not wanting to express your will through it? To the extent that non-voter Bob is conservative in Texas, for example, Bob may rightly feel that other conservatives in Texas who do vote will express his will on his behalf in order to deliver all of Texas' Electoral votes for the conservative. Under a national popular vote system with a very uncertain outcome, Bob may feel that the only way he can be certain his will is expressed is through voting.

You can examine 2016 turnout figures by state here]. Turnout isn't relatively low in all Solid states and high in all Swing states, but you can make the case that in populous Solid states with lower turnout like California and Texas there is a lot of voting "left on the table" that could greatly influence the popular vote in a national popular vote system.

The campaign strategies would be different, the candidate platforms might be different, and the makeup of the voters would be different (hell, you might make the case that overall turnout would be lower). One cannot say "If we didn't have the Electoral College, Hillary (or Gore) would have won" because the popular vote would surely be different. Maybe Hillary (or Gore) would have still won, but maybe a more conservative than liberal non-voters would have decided to vote and tip the popular vote in Bush's (or Trump's) favor. It's very hard to tell, and the current national popular vote totals provide no guide.

*Addendum: Something should also be said about the fact that voter eligibility and registration laws are a patchwork of 50 state regimes. Some states allow felons to vote, some states require registration 30 days before, some states disallow absentee voting without a qualified excuse, and so on. Under a national popular vote system, there would likely have to be some degree of harmonization of eligibility rules so that all citizens are on equal footing in terms of whether they can vote and how.