Hillary Clinton won over 2.8 million more votes than Donald
Trump. But, Trump is President-elect because he won 57% of Electoral College
delegates.
http://www.cnn.com/election/results
Delegates are awarded to the candidate who wins the most
votes in each state. Trump did a better job targeting his campaign on large states
with close contests. Trump’s 46% of the national vote was distributed state-by-state
more effectively than Clinton’s 48%.
Meanwhile, back in my native Canada the House of Commons Special
Committee on Electoral Reform released a report on December 1st.
What does Trump’s triumph tell us about the voting reform options
under consideration in Canada?
The Canadian and American systems are not carbon copies,
but have much in common. In American elections, all Electoral College delegates
go to the candidate who wins the most votes in a state, no matter how small the
margin. In Canada, our first-past-the-post (FPP) method awards a House of
Commons seat to the candidate who wins the most votes in a constituency.
The winner-take-all aspect of the American and Canadian
systems has similar effects. In the US, Trump turned 46% of the national vote
into 57% of Electoral College delegates. In Canada, Stephen Harper in 2011 and
Justin Trudeau in 2015 both won control of 54% of House seats even though their
parties had less than 40% of total votes. (See footnote 1 at end of
text.)
How could voting reform reduce the chances in Canada of
a party with minority support winning a majority government? The solution is a
voting system that measures popular support better than FPP.
The House Committee on Electoral Reform consulted about
two alternatives.
The first is proportional representation (PR) used in most
of Europe. Under PR, a party’s proportion of legislative seats is close to its percentage
of total votes. If the Conservatives, Liberals and New Democratic Party (NDP)
won 40%, 35% and 25% respectively of votes in a future election, the
Conservatives would get 40% of the seats, the Liberals 35% and NDP 25% under PR.
(See
footnote 2.) After
the election, parties would negotiate with each other searching for enough in
common to form a government with majority support.
The other option is the preferential voting (PV) system
used in Australia. Under PV, a voter can rank local candidates. If no one wins
50% of first-choice votes, the candidate with the fewest first-choices is dropped. Ballots are recounted based
on second-choices until a candidate reaches 50%.
What does the American election tell us about these
alternatives? Trump would have won even under PV.
Exit polls showed a slight advantage for Clinton when the 6% who voted for minor candidates were asked to choose between Trump and Clinton.
Michigan is the only state that might have switched to Clinton under PV. Trump
would have won an electoral college majority even under Australian rules. (See footnote
3.)
What about PR? Trump and Clinton would have tied with 267 delegates each -- 3 short of the 270 needed to win.
Under PR, Trump and Clinton would have had to make deals with minor-party leaders. Libertarian Gary Johnson shares Trump’s isolationist approach
to foreign affairs and would likely have instructed his 2 delegates to support
the Donald.
If Green candidate Jill Stein and independent Evan McMullin had each sent 1 delegate to Clinton, a 269-269 electoral college tie would have sent the election to the House of Representatives. The Republican House would elect Trump.
Candidate
|
Number
of Electoral College Delegates
|
Actual Result: First Past the Post (FPP)
|
Simulated Result:
Preferential Voting (PV)
|
Simulated Result:
Proportional Representation (PR)
|
Donald
Trump
|
306
|
290
|
267
|
Hillary
Clinton
|
232
|
248
|
267
|
All
Others
|
0
|
0
|
4
|
Note: The above
simulations are not intended as precise predictions of what the results would
have been under PV and PR. Politicians
campaign differently when second
choices matter under PV or when all
votes in all states count under PR. The direction of change is what is
important in the above table. It is very likely that Trump would have won
significantly fewer delegates under PR. His share of total delegates would have
been much closer to his share of the national vote.
Why would Trump still be tied in delegates with Clinton under PR even with 2.8 million
fewer votes than Clinton? The electoral college is tilted to favour states with
small populations, most of which are Republican. This tilt in the electoral
college cannot be fixed easily, as it was part of the bargain when the former
British colonies formed the United States.
Yes, Trump would likely have won even under PR. But, the message
for Canadians is that a PR election would have been more difficult for Trump. (See footnote
4.)
One American election cannot furnish statistically
significant proof that PR would be better than FPP for Canadians. But, we will
never have the controlled experiment conditions needed for conclusive evidence
about which voting system is best. Trump’s victory in the United States adds to
what we already know from our experience in Canada about the shortcomings of winner-take-all
FPP. Let’s act now on voting reform in Canada before it’s too late.
Footnotes:
1. The
risk is even greater in Canada that a government can be elected without majority
support. The top two Canadian parties, Liberals and Conservatives, combined to win
71% of the total vote in our 2015 election. By contrast, the top two American parties,
Democrats and Republicans, just took 95% – a bit below the recent average. With
more parties as serious players with significant support, the potential is even
greater in Canada for the distribution of House of Commons seats to deviate
from party shares of the national vote.
2. In
proportional representation (PR) examples with more parties and more
complicated rules such as minimum threshold requirements to win seats based on either
national or regional vote shares, the end result would still be party seats broadly
in line with vote shares.
3. Relative
to first-past-the-post (FPP), preferential voting (PV) would not always benefit
left-wing parties at the expense of right-wing parties. British Professor John
Curtice’s simulations show that Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative Party would have
won majority mandates in 1983 and 1987 even under PV. At that time, the British
Labour Party would have lost seats under PV. http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/uk_politics/10/alternative_vote/alternative_vote_june_09_notes.pdf In Australia, the Liberal Party has
been the natural party of government winning most national elections since PV
was introduced in 1919. The Australian Liberal Party traces its roots to 19th
century, free trade liberals and is that country’s right-wing mainstream party.
4. One
objection to PR is that the Nazis rose to be the largest party in Germany in PR
elections. Hitler was then invited to take over as Chancellor. The Nazi example
demonstrates the institutional weakness of the German Weimar Republic, not the
failure of PR. Hitler became Chancellor in 1933 with one-third of the seats in
the Reichstag. Hitler then moved immediately to dictatorship and never
had to build the coalition necessary under PR. Neither courts, police nor military
acted to defend democracy.
