Aliens Would Have Cost Bush the Election: The Fragility of Narrow Electoral College Victories

Michael L. Rosin

Abstract

Defenders of the Electoral College frequently assert that victory in the Electoral College requires a winning candidate to “produce a coalition of states with wide and diverse interests” thereby producing “a broadly based electoral victory.” For the defenders of the College, simply winning the popular vote is not sufficient. None of these supporters of the Electoral College ever pauses to consider the fragility of the narrow Electoral College victories such as the one achieved George W. Bush in 2000. The following parameters can all influence the outcome of an extremely close presidential election: (1) the size of the House relative to the size of the Senate, (2) he precise boundaries of a state, (3) the precise number of states, (4) the age of the House apportionment underlying the Electoral College, (5) the choice of the forward-looking House apportionment rather than the backward-looking House apportionment in the Presidential election immediately following the completion of a census and reapportionment process, (6) the population basis used to apportion the House, (7) the method used to apportion the House. Amazingly, each of the first six of these parameters would have come into play individually if Al Gore had won New Hampshire in the 2000 election. In contrast, the outcome of a national popular vote would not have depended on the setting of any of these parameters.