Skip to main content

Electoral College System Has a Dangerous Defect, Duke Political Scientist Says

Michael Munger says the system for electing U.S. presidents collapses when an election is close

An effort under way in Colorado to change the way that state awards electoral votes to presidential candidates is critical to the health of American politics, says a Duke University political scientist.

Colorado voters will decide Nov. 2 whether to amend the state constitution to end the winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes. That system would be replaced by a proportional system, in which electoral votes are awarded based on the percentage of popular votes a candidate wins.

Right now, 48 states have winner-take-all systems. A presidential candidate needs a majority of electoral votes to win the White House.

Michael Munger, chairman of Duke's political science department, said the 2000 election revealed a crippling defect in the Electoral College: the system collapses when an election is close.

"Colorado would be the first state to go to a purely proportional system, but other states should follow its lead as soon as possible for the health of our electoral system," Munger said.

Munger's current research focuses on presidential campaign strategies and the Electoral College; other research interests include Congress and the presidency. Munger has written or edited four books, including "Ideology and the Theory of Political Choice" and "Analytical Politics." His most recent book, "Analyzing Policy: Choices, Conflicts and Practices," was published in August 2000.

In the winner-take-all system, Munger said, "too much rides on a few votes." As a result, the enormous stakes lead to irresistible pressures for election fraud.

"Alternative systems, including the congressional district system of Nebraska and Maine or a truly proportional system, would sharply reduce the incentives for 'finding' extra ballots in endless recounts," Munger said. "In 2000, each candidate would have gotten half the Electoral College votes in Florida (13 or 14), instead of one candidate getting all 27."

The Electoral College was designed to give small states a voice in the presidential election. The number of electors in each state corresponds to the number of U.S. representatives from that state, plus two.

But Munger said the problems with the winner-take-all approach more than outweigh any benefits small states get under the current system.

"If candidates only got a proportion of the Electoral College votes in the close, large states, they would have to campaign in other states also," he said.

Note to broadcast editors: Duke provides an on-campus satellite uplink facility for live or pre-recorded television interviews. We are also equipped with ISDN connectivity for radio interviews. Broadcast reporters should contact the Office of Radio-TV Services at (919) 681-8067 to arrange an interview.