top of page
Tom Monto

What if the 2016 U.S. pres. election had been held using Alternative Voting?

Updated: Feb 21

What if the 2016 U.S. presidential election had been held using Alternative Voting?

Or,

Was Clinton Robbed?


With

Trump receiving 46 percent of the vote and Hilary Clinton receiving 48 percent, what would have happened if the remaining 6 percent of the vote (the amount given to minor parties) had been able to be transferred to Clinton? Would it have changed the outcome?


Would it possibly have given Clinton more votes than Trump?


Wait -- what -- she already had more votes than Trump - and still lost.


Something is wrong in the state of Denmark.


Presidents are not elected by having a majority, or even the most, votes in the "regular election", but by a process where the voters in the U.S. are divided into electoral districts. Like under our FPTP system, such divisions create un-proportionality and many wasted votes.


Electoral college seats are awarded in total to the party that has the most votes in each state, except Maine and Nebraska. These two states each allocate two seats to winner of state-wide plurality winner, and in Maine the two remaining state's seats are awarded to winners of plurality in the two congressional districts, in Nebraska the three remaining state's seats are awarded to winners of plurality in the three congressional districts. (Delegates of some states in the electoral college have broken with custom and placed their vote with an alternative candidate irrespective of the state majority. Seven so-called "faithless electors" did so in the 2016 election, although none went to Trump when "promised" to Clinton and none went to Clinton when "promised" to Trump.)


In no state is there organized proportionality for electoral college delegates. Although this would be fairest - most representative - way to choose Electoral college seats.


Unlike our system of FPTP, it is not open to gerrymandering - electoral colleges are based on state boundaries. The only exception is two states that allocate some EC seats to winners by plurality in their congressional district.


And similarly to our FPTP system, a small number of votes shifting can make or break a government's dominance. In our last federal election, the shifting of a small fraction of one percent of the vote would have given us a minority Conservative government and not a minority Liberal government. A shift of only 39,000 votes, a miniscule amount of the 136M votes cast in the election, could have shifted three states from pro-Trump to pro-Clinton and turned all the electoral college seats in the three states to the Clinton camp, and produced her victory. (see footnote).


Trump took a majority of the electoral college seats, although

Clinton received almost 3M more votes than Trump.

(Neither received a majority of the votes country-wide.)


Thus 2016 was a wrong-winner election.


The Wikipedia article "List of U.S. presidential elections where the winner lost the popular vote" has much information on wrong-winner elections. However, the title of this article is backwards as far as the important aspect of the case. It is not so much that the "winner lost the popular vote" as the fact that the most-popular candidate was not elected.


This can happen in Canada's parliamentary system as well. It happened in 1896. Comparing us to the States, since Confederation in 1867, wrong-winner elections have happened once in Canada, and five times in the U.S. since 1867.


1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000, like 2016, were wrong-winner elections. In all cases except 1824, a candidate received a majority of the electoral college seats but that candidate happened not to be the most popular one based on actual votes.


In 1876, Hayes won despite his Democrat opponent Tilden receiving a majority (not just relative plurality) of votes.


In 1888, Harrison won, instead of more-popular Cleveland.


In 2000, George W. Bush was elected although Gore received more votes. (more on the 2000 election below)


And in 2016 Trump won, instead of more-popular Clinton.


1824

Four major candidates ran in 1824.

In order of popularity in the general vote, they were

Andrew Jackson, John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay and William Crawford.

(This though is murky as six states did not hold a "regular election" of the public - their legislators, not the people, named their delegates.)


In order of support by the electoral college they were

John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, William Crawford and Henry Clay.


Adams had more electoral college (EC) seats than any other candidate but he did not have a majority of the seats.

In these cases, under the U.S. Constitution, a form of run-off election is used. All but the three candidates with the most EC seats are eliminated. (Usually a run-off vote only has the two most popular candidates.


And the winner among the three is chosen by the House of Representatives. The number three was likely chosen to allow a dark horse to emerge if that is will of the House.


Clay was eliminated (as he had the fewest EC seats), although receiving more regular election votes than Crawford. He struck what was called by Jackson supporters a Corrupt Bargain, whereby he sent his EC seats to Adams in exchange for being named Adams's Secretary of State.


Clay could not simply (I think so anyway) give his EC seats to Adams, but through force of character or some pay-off to his EC delegates he had the EC seats shifted as he desired.


(Under STV, the voter is at full liberty to allocate his back-up preferences as he or she pleases so there is much less ability to achieve such a "Corrupt Bargain." Under STV systems used in Canada, the voter did not have to rank all the candidates, so there was no guarantee by potential bargain-makers that there were even back-up preferences to allow transfers.)


Andrew Jackson, like Hilary Clinton in 2016, was then in position of seeing his general popularity among the electorate fade into insignificance as a less-popular candidate rose to the podium.


In the old schoolbook This is America's Story, it reads "The action of the House of Representatives in choosing Adams as president angered Jackson and his friends. Because Jackson had received more votes than Adams in the regular election, they claimed that Jackson had been robbed of the presidency and that the will of the people had not been carried out."


And recognize that this is not some radical polemic out of some hashish-smoky basement room with revolutionary posters on the wall. A simple schoolbook talking of how a candidates with more votes among the people complained of being denied the presidency. Compare that with the defensive but effective defenders of Trump who put across myth that people should accept the 2016 result because it (how they elect presidents in the U.S.) is democracy. Fundamentally, it is a republic system, not a democracy.


Trump's defenders did such a great job that Clinton is not the candidate this year. So the 2016/2020's parallel with 1824/1828 ends there.


This is America's Story goes on to say about the 1828 election -"Jackson and his friends set to work at once to make sure that Jackson should be elected in 1828. So well did they work, and so unpopular was President Adams, that Jackson won an easy victory in 1828."


So Alternative Voting would not have affected Trump's 2016 election. He had a minority of the votes. Even if Clinton had received vote transfers from the lesser candidates (after AV-style eliminations), she would have merely piled more votes on her already large lead over Trump.


Having majority of the regular election votes was not what it takes to be president. It is having a majority of the votes in a majority of the states.


Well, actually having a plurality in enough states to control a majority of the Electoral college seats is what it takes to be president. (That is what Trump had.)


Or if no one got a majority of the EC seats, then to have the approval of the House of Reps, as Adams had in 1824.


Having Alternative voting for voters in the general election, where in each state votes would be transferred, if necessary, until one candidate had a majority of the state vote and that candidate was given all the state's EC seats would have likely given different result as we explain below.


I am not sure how many millions of votes were wasted in the Electoral college election but there was a tremendous amount. (Not to mention that 44 percent of eligible voters did not vote.)


How many millions of Clinton votes in Trump-won states were thrown in the wastebasket?

Examples:

1M in Arizona, 45 percent of the state's votes. Trump won with 49 percent of the vote.

4.5M in Florida, 48 percent of the state's vote. Trump won with 49 percent of the vote.

3.9M in Texas, 43 percent of the state's votes. Trump won with 52 percent of the vote.


How many millions of Trump votes in Clinton-won states were thrown in the wastebasket?

Examples:

2.8M in New York, 37 percent of state's votes Clinton won with 59 percent of the vote.

4.5M in California, 32 percent of state's votes. Clinton won with 62 percent of the vote.


The great amounts of wasted votes in each state are unevenly spread across the country. As well, a varying percentage, not to mention number of votes, was required to win a state's electoral college seats.


Clinton won Hawaii with 62 percent of the vote 90,000 Dem. votes per EC seat

Clinton won Minnesota with 44 percent of the vote 137,000 Dem. votes per EC seat

Clinton won Maryland with 60 percent of the vote 168,000 Dem. votes per EC seat

Clinton won Massachusetts with 60 percent of the vote 181,000 Dem. votes per EC seat


Trump won Alaska with 51 percent of the vote 54,000 Rep. votes per EC seat

Trump won Arizona with 49 percent of the vote 114,000 Rep. votes per EC seat

Trump won Oklahoma with 65 percent of the vote 136,000 Rep. votes per EC seat

Trump won Wisconsin with 47 percent of the vote 141,000 Rep. votes per EC seat


Thus 181,000 Clinton supporters in Massachusetts gave her one EC seat (2M supporters there gave her only 11 seats), while Trump received 3 seats in Alaska with the support of only 163,000 voters, a scant 54,000 votes per seat.


Trump's collected 163,000 votes in Alaska (3 seats) and 1.2 M in Arizona (11 seats).

Clinton collected 2M votes in Massachusetts for 11 seats.

1.4M Trump voters got him 14 EC seats.

2M Clinton voters got her 11 EC seats.


The electoral college system would not produce as many wrong-winner elections if the delegates from each state were picked proportionally based on the popular vote within the state, perhaps through STV. If the electoral delegates of each state have to be all of one party, a fair system would be majoritarian (see below).


The great amounts of wasted votes in each state, plus the varying rates of representation (the voter-to-seat ratio) from state to state, produced a result where

the candidate with more of the popular vote was barred from the presidency, a wrong-winner result.


The varying rates of representation (the voter-to-seat ratio) from state to state is produced by the fact that each state irrespective of its size gets two seats, with the amount of other seats varying based on population. The lesser-populated states had so many less voters per delegate than the most-populated ones that it affected the proportionality of the electoral college versus the country-wide popular vote.


Alaska 318,000 voters and 3 delegates = 100,000 voters per delegate.

163,000 Trump supporters elected three Republican delegates.

Michigan 5M for 16 delegates = 312,000 voters per delegate.

2.3M Republicans elected 16 Republican EC delegates

Wisconsin 3M for 10 delegates = 300,000 voters per delegate.

1.4M Republicans elected 10 Republican EC delegates

Pennsylvania 6.2M for 20 delegates = 300,000 voters per delegate.

3M Republicans elected 20 Republican EC delegates.

(Only in the case of Alaska did Trump take a majority of the votes in a state, although taking all of each of these states' delegates.)


On the other hand, cloudying the issue,

New York had 7.7M votes and 29 delegates - a ratio of 266,000 voters to each delegate. 4.5M votes elected 29 Democratic delegates.


In conclusion, Clinton was robbed...


------------------------------

"footnote"

-------------------------------------

from wikipedia: 2016 U.S. presidential election

Data scientist Hamdan Azhar noted the paradoxes of the 2016 outcome, saying that "chief among them [was] the discrepancy between the popular vote, which Hillary Clinton won by 2.8 million votes, and the electoral college, where Trump won 304-227". ... He concluded, with help from The Cook Political Report, that the election [result was not decided by] Clinton's large 2.8M overall vote margin over Trump, but [by] about 78,000 votes from only three counties in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania,.[375]

----------------------------------------------

A shift of only 39,000 votes in those three states would have given the presidency to Clinton.


Trump's lead in these three states was 78,000 so a move of 39,000 votes from him to Clinton would have given her more votes in those states. It would have shifted all the electoral college seats in the three states to her, giving her more EC seats than Trump had - and giving her the presidency.


Trump won by 77 EC seats --- 304 seats compared to 227 seats.

Michigan 16 EC seats Trump led Clinton by 11,000 votes

(a small amount of the state's total 5M)

Wisconsin 10 EC seats Trump led Clinton by 23,000 votes

(a small amount of the state's total 2.9M)

Pennsylvania 20 EC seats Trump led Clinton by 44,000 votes

(a small amount of the state's total 6.2M)


Trump 304 - 46 = 258 Clinton 227 + 46 = 273

With the new result in those three states, Trump would have been reduced to 258 EC seats, while Clinton's total would have risen to 273, giving her the presidency.


Other close races -- these ones went to the Democrat's favour -- were:

Nevada 27,000-vote lead gave 6 seats to Clinton.

NH 3,000-vote lead gave 4 delegates to Clinton

------------------

If the electoral delegates of each state have to be all of one party, then at least they should represent the views of a majority of state voters. That party could be determined by Alternative Voting, where voters cast preferential votes allocating back-up preferences so that the vote can be transferred to lesser choice instead of being wasted. This would allow voters to vote for minor parties knowing that if they would not see their candidate elected (which is likely the case), the vote could be transferred to one of the two big candidates.


Note that in Michigan 250,000 votes went to minor parties. and were not used in the main Republican-Democrat rivalry. Trump won this state with only a 11,000-vote lead. The amount that went to each of three minor parties (or independent) candidates), if they could have been transferred - and had been transferred to Clinton - would have made Clinton the leading candidate in Michigan and given her Michigan's 16 electoral college seats.

A similar situation existed in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin as well.

Her success in just these three states would have given her the presidency.

------------------------------------------


Trump won all the electoral college seats in 30 or so states plus one seat in Maine.

He won some states with less than a majority of the state votes.

These were:

Arizona 49 percent Republican 11 EC seats

Florida 49 percent " 29 EC seats

Michigan 48 percent " 16 EC seats

Pennsylvania 48 percent 20 EC seats

Wisconsin 47 percent Republican 10 EC seats

Utah 46 percent Republican 6 EC seats

(Only 27 percent of the Utah vote went to Clinton; 22 p.c. went to an Independent.)

In these six states, a majority of the voters were not represented (as far as we can tell by the votes cast) by the electoral college delegates, who were all of the Republican stripe.

If the minor-party vote in these six states had been able to - and had - thrown their vote behind Clinton, she would have won the presidency.


Conversely even without vote transfers, if Clinton had been represented proportionally in the Electoral college seats in these six states, she would have won the presidency:

Arizona 45 percent Democrat 5 EC seats shifted to Cinton

Florida 48 percent " 14 EC seats shifted to Cinton

Michigan 47 percent " 8 EC seats shifted to Cinton

Pennsylvania 47 percent " 10 EC seats shifted to Cinton

Wisconsin 46 percent " 5 EC seats shifted to Cinton

Utah 27 percent " 2 EC seats shifted to Cinton

Trump 302 - 44 = 258 Clinton 227 + 44 = 271

Figures are rounded off.


Of course if proportionality was used in other states as well to determine the electoral college, the result would differ from 2016 election results even more.

A Clinton election would have likely resulted:

Clinton's 48 percent of the vote would have given her something like 255 seats

to Trump's 46 percent = 244 seats.

-----------------------


the 2000 election, like 2016, is another case where the presidential candidate with more votes was not elected while the other candidate with fewer votes was elected.


Here I discuss the 2016 election but more generally the use of PR to elect the Electoral college with idea that direct election of president is a thing to be achieved, if at all, much farther in the future.

also discussed is the probable outcome if IRV is used - likely not much different than the FPTP election outcome.



under IRV, as the term is usually used (such as Wikipedia), if no one gets majority in firs count, less-

pop candidates are dropped off one by one until someone  has majority, not necessarilly one of the top two in first count.

this is the system once called Alternative Voting.

the instant two-candidate runoff is what is now called contingent voting.

I wish people used term contingent voting if they mean  instant two-candidate runoff.


and wish they did not support contingent voting anyway as it denies a third cand. who might very well be people's choice in the then end if the voting is not arbitrarily reduced to choice of just two.


but yes in U.S. (even if nowhere else), two cand. are bound to be far ahead of others, and one of them will win anyway..


=======================


IRV is fairest way to elect one person. majority is happy with result

PR (of whatever method) is a fair way to elect a group.


U.S. president is elected by Electoral college which is elected by general ticket voting (plurality in state (except Maine and Nevada) 

but EC could be elected by PR in each state (producing mixed state contingent), or with more serious reform, the president could be elected by IRV directly by voters.

there is move to get states to sign on to simply forming its state EC contingent based on winner of overall vote across country  (plurality is set to be means to establish that front runner - ranked votes would be a complication)

back-up preferences prevent wasted votes and under any system make for more fair result based on overall appeal, fewer wasted votes

whether only one back-up vote in Ed's supplemental vote or the possible full ranking under STV, they work toward same purpose, 

but under any system a marked preference may never be used.

"one person one vote" rule is old standby and means fairness especially if all or most votes are used to elect someone. IMO, obviously that means mmd or some pooling of votes to elect multiple members.


I am looking at how president is elected by EC, not by popular vote.

currently EC elected (mostly) by ticket voting based on plurality in each state.

only Maine was mentioned as exception. (there are others perhaps)

EC for each state could be assembled by PR.

 more fair.

EC for each state could be still ticket voting  - I myself do not feel I hve power to call for amending the U.S. constitution 

but party that gets state's EC seats maybe constitutionally could be determined by party level IRV.

but that would not have mattered anyway in many of the states (the states listed), as voters therein gave majority to one party anyway so no secondary count. 

IRV varies from FPTP or plurlaity contest only if no cand. (or party in this case) takes majority.

president canot be PR but EC, being a body of members, can be PR.

hope that is more clear.



U.S. electoral college

most states take purality for state and gives all EC seats in that state to that party.

president not elected by popular votes.

Maine breaks down state into two districts, each with one EC seat


say EC is replaced by IRV in each state 

would not change result in most cases 

few states did not see majority of votes go to one or other of Bush or Gore. (where majority is achieved, no secondary preferences would be applied.)

only:

Florida

Iowa

Minnesoata 

Nevada

N.H.

N. Mexico

Ohio

Oregon

Wisconsin

did not see one or other take majority.


so yes possible IRV in state wold make diff.

But easier case could be made that change to 

IRV for overall votes cast (where Nader's votes would go to secondary choice overall) or

proportional allocation of EC seats in each state*

would bring more certain majoritarian result overall.


* example of unfair rep under general ticket election of EC -- in New York, 2.4M Republican voters (almost five times Nader's vote total) got no rep in the EC.


so in short, IRV can produce no fairness that PR would not produce more dependably.

=====================


Here's some stats to show how IRV is not good

winners under IRV are in almost all cases the same as would be under FPTP 

(That means the IRV result is just as dis-proportional as FPTP.)

Provincially

AB 1924 to 1956

With total of about 500-560 seats filled through AV, only 8 seats were filled differently under AV than would have been the case under FPTP

MB 1927-1953

with maybe 300 seats filled through AV, only 5 were filled differently under AV than how they would have been under FPTP

BC    In 1952 and 1953      BC filled 96 seats through AV.

Only 12 were filled differently under AV than how they would have been under FPTP,

With so few "turn-overs," there is no surprise that AV produces just as dis-proportional representation as FPTP.


source/ additional info:


City elections IRV

London ON city election 2018

In every ward and in the mayor's contest, the candidate who lead in the first count was elected every time. So the winner would have been the same if the election had been conducted using FPTP (assuming that voters would have voted the same).


Such a system is not any great improvement over FPTP.. In fact the same people are elected as under FPTP in most cases anyway.


Woud Liberals still win 160 seats under AV as they did under FPTP?

Likely they would. 


Would they win more than that number? 

It actually seems they would not, judging by these numbers.

in the 178 ridings where Liberals did not lead (338-160), the person who was leading (either Conservative, NDP, BQ or Green) likely would go on to win the seat, not the Liberal.


For one thing even under IRV, secondary preferences are not referred to unless no candidate took majority in the first count.


In half or so of the districts a candidate did take majority in first count so (if voters vote the same under IRV as they do under FPTP) in almost all ridings there will either be no second count (hence no possibility of different result than FPTP) or the result in the second count will be the same as the result in the first count anyway, judging by past IRV elections in Canada.


============

Probably principle continues for elections of presidents as well. any singlewinner siuation, IRV likely sees initially leading candidate elected usually.


=======


Under IRV in BC, Alberta, and Manitoba, on average only 50% of voters bothered to cast a second preference.

2) with optional rankings, only 2-3% of seats changed based on second preferences (I'm surprised that BC number is so high!?!?)


=============

The states have near absolute control over their own electors.

They can be elected in whatever means the state desires. They could even be randomly chosen people in the state. They vote by secret or recorded ballot depending on the state law. Parties can submit slates of electors based on their convention vote, the party's central committee, the candidate themselves might offer a slate, etc. The electors may or may not be listed on the ballots or only the candidates and their parties.

The constitution says the following about the electoral college:



Article II of the US constitution

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.



The Congress may determine the Time of chusing (sic) the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.



Twelfth Amendment

The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; -- the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; -- The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.-- The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.



Fourteenth Amendment


But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.



No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.



Fifteenth Amendment

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.



Nineteenth Amendment

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.



Twentieth Amendment

The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.



Twenty-Third Amendment

The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as Congress may direct:



A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.



Twenty-fourth amendment

The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay poll tax or other tax.



Twenty-sixth amendment

The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.



Thanks for reading.

============================================


2 views

Recent Posts

See All

Comments


bottom of page