By Holley Ulbrich, special to Statehouse Report | One lesson from last year’s primary and general election that shouldn’t be lost is that we all would like our vote to matter. So what are the obstacles?
The Electoral College is one, where votes in small states count more than votes in large states enabling a fairly convincing popular vote win to translate into an Electoral College loss. The interminable primary season is another, with a mix of caucuses and primaries with different rules for different parties and different states, even though the winner is supposed to serve the whole country.
But perhaps the biggest challenge of all is the widespread American practice of winner-take-all rather than proportional voting. If I get 50 percent (plus one) of the vote in my Statehouse or congressional district, or in the contest for delegates to party conventions or votes in the Electoral College, I win it all. The 50 percent minus one who voted for my opponent get nothing. It’s hard to be a blue person in a red state, or a red person in a blue state, because you don’t have much influence on or a lot of shared values and priorities with the person who is supposedly representing you in office, or at the party convention, or on the city council, where elections are often held for numbered seats rather than at large.
In South Carolina, officially a red state, the balance in voting in the last presidential election was about 55 percent Republican, 40 percent Democratic. Leaving out third party candidates, the adjusted ratio was 59 percent Republican, 42 percent Democratic. Obama did better, 45 percent in 2008 and 44 percent in 2012, but to keep the math simple and current, let’s go with the 2016 ratio. If that ratio translated into Congress, South Carolina would have one Republican and one Democrat in the U.S. Senate, four Republicans and three Democrats in the House. Instead, it’s two Republicans in the Senate and in the House, six Republicans, one Democrat. The same ratio would translate into 72 Republicans and 52 Democrats in the SC House and 27 Republicans, 19 Democrats in the Senate. The Senate is surprisingly close at 28 Republicans and 18 Democrats, but the House is a little more lopsided with are 80 Republicans and 44 Democrats.
Obviously, the two parties do not capture all the dimensions of diversity—race, gender, age, income, education—that makes citizens prefer one candidate over another. But South Carolina mirrors the nation as a whole in having a substantial minority of not just citizens but voters who feel underrepresented. The same is often true for Republicans who live in a blue state.
South Carolina has a long history of resisting the tyranny of the majority, going back to the writing of the Constitution. So if we are going to ensure that all voices are heard, let it begin with us. There are two possible answers to this challenge. One is proportional representation. The other is the redistricting that will take place after the 2020 Census, for which we need to begin to prepare right now.
Proportional representation at party conventions or in the selection of electors might have resulted in a very different outcome both in the choice of a Republican nominee and in the outcome reflecting the popular vote, which was lopsided in favor of the losing candidate. States control the rules governing electors. Only two states, Nebraska and Maine, apportion any electors on a principle other than winner take all, and their choice is to give the statewide winner the two votes representing senators and to apportion the others based on who won in congressional districts.
It is risky for one state to change without other states going along because it alters the overall balance. California would send more Republicans and Texas would send more Democrats to the Electoral College with proportional representation, but California isn’t going to change unless Texas does too. States also have a major say in how delegates to the party nominating conventions are chosen, but the general principle among Democrats is proportional representation, while among Republicans it is winner take all. Winner take all favors a candidate with a minority of party support who leads in a crowded field.
At the state level, proportional representation is more an issue of redistricting, which is subject to requirements of equal representation. Congressional redistricting has given us a congressional representation that is not reflective of the makeup of the state, but hasn’t done too badly in the General Assembly.
In the aftermath of the 2016 election, it’s a good time to rethink both the primary process and the rules governing electors before we are deep into the next presidential election. (It’s less than four years away!) But it’s also a good time to look at our Senate and House districts and see if they need some tweaking to ensure that we are respectful of both the will of the majority and the right to representation for the minority.
Holley Hewitt Ulbrich is an Alumni Distinguished Professor Emerita of Economics at Clemson University and a member of the Board of Directors of the League of Women Voters of South Carolina.
- Have a comment? Send it to: feedback@statehousereport.com.
We Can Do Better, South Carolina!