Ending the Electoral College Doesn’t Suit All Democrats

(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Eliminating the Electoral College from U.S. presidential elections is understandably a hot topic among Democratic contenders. Their party won the popular vote in 2000 and 2016 but lost the presidency both times. But such a change wouldn’t benefit all candidates equally. Because campaigns would no longer be trying to win certain states, but rather just to woo as many voters as they can anywhere, the biggest beneficiaries would probably be turnout-centric candidates like Beto O’Rourke — and large, diverse Sun Belt metros.

Consider what types of places get more or less attention now than they “should” because of the incentives of the Electoral College, in which presidents are elected by delegates rather than directly by voters. It’s possible that in 2020 there may be as few as seven decisive states: Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Florida and Arizona. The large metro areas in those states would still get plenty of attention under a popular-vote system, but it’s the midsize metros that get outsize attention in an Electoral College system, cities like Manchester and Nashua in New Hampshire. 

A popular vote system would change that. The biggest winners would be large metro areas in states that currently “don’t matter” in presidential elections because they’re safely Republican or Democratic. Both Republicans and Democrats would suddenly be motivated to turn out their supporters in those metros. Large, fast-growing Sun Belt cities would be particularly prized by Democrats, because those areas often have large numbers of young and nonwhite citizens who may not be registered or who may be more casual voters. At a macro level, eliminating the Electoral College would shift the emphasis from slower-growing, largely white, midsize metros in the Northeast and the Midwest toward faster-growing, less-white, large metros in the South and the West.

Another factor, particularly relevant as the 2020 Democratic presidential nominating contest is taking place, is what kinds of candidates would be best-suited to benefit from this system. Ideology and policy are always going to be important to parties, but to actually win, the whole game of presidential elections would become about turnout. Parties would focus even more on which candidates are most likely to drive turnout everywhere. A candidate with a strong but smaller base of loyal, ideological supporters would be less likely to win party support than a popular celebrity-type candidate who has shown an ability to turn out casual voters everywhere. This would benefit people like declared presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke and potential candidate Stacey Abrams, both of whom had impressive “compete everywhere” turnout campaigns in their 2018 losing efforts.

While Democrats are mostly thinking about the Electoral College right now through the lens of “Would eliminating the Electoral College help us with the presidency more often?” they should also think through the second-order impacts of what it would mean for campaign styles and strategy, and how it would impact both parties in the long run. A popular vote system would make Democratic presidential candidates more likely to be crowd-pleasers who can appeal to broad, diverse audiences in large Sun Belt metros, potentially at the expense of more experienced, policy-driven candidates who appeal to older, more engaged voters in the Midwest and the Northeast.

It’s not clear how ending the Electoral College would affect the Republican Party — perhaps very little. The opponents of O’Rourke and Abrams, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas and Governor Brian Kemp of Georgia, won because they also produced huge turnout gains in rural areas (thanks to the environment produced by President Donald Trump). For now, trying to max out rural and conservative voter turnout all across the country may be the optimal strategy for Republicans under either an Electoral College or popular vote system.

Despite the persistence of the Electoral College, we see both parties increasingly being driven by grassroots energy and turnout. The Democratic Party might have preferred to see O’Rourke run for the Senate in Texas again, but instead he joined the presidential race and raised more money in the first 24 hours after his announcement than any other declared candidate so far. The party may prefer that Abrams run for the Senate in Georgia in 2020, but she’s considering a presidential bid as well. So although the presidency may still be in the hands of the Electoral College, the candidates who can get out the vote still have a chance to change the conversation.

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Philip Gray at philipgray@bloomberg.net

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

Conor Sen is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. He is a portfolio manager for New River Investments in Atlanta and has been a contributor to the Atlantic and Business Insider.

©2019 Bloomberg L.P.