Abstract
American Presidential elections are indirect, reflecting popular support for the candidates through the institution of the Electoral College to choose the President. In common with other plurality-based electoral systems, the College tends to exaggerate the apparent mandate received by the winner of the popular vote but, on occasion, can deliver victory to the second-placed candidate. Despite a sizeable literature on its operation and vagaries, however, relatively little attention has been paid to the question of systematic bias in the College: does one party receive a consistent advantage over the other from the College's operation? The paper examines the evidence for such a bias in each Presidential election since 1960. Although biases have occurred and in some cases were substantial, neither major party is a consistent beneficiary; the prime source of bias is to be found in the relative effectiveness of parties' own vote-winning strategies.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 35-45 |
| Number of pages | 11 |
| Journal | Political Geography |
| Volume | 40 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - May 2014 |
Keywords
- Bias
- Electoral College
- Electoral geography
- Presidential elections
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of '"The electors shall meet in their respective states": Bias and the US Presidential Electoral College, 1960-2012'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver