9.9 Myths about Absolute Majorities and Run-Offs

Tara Ross, a lobbyist against the National Popular Vote Compact who works closely with Save Our States, has criticized the National Popular Vote Compact on the grounds that it does not require that the winner receive an absolute majority of the popular votes. She told a Delaware Senate committee:

“The compact … would give the presidency to the candidate winning the ‘largest national popular vote total.’ Note that it says the ‘largest’ total.’ It is not looking for a majority winner.”[292] [Emphasis added]

John Samples of the Cato Institute criticizes the Compact by saying:

“If a plurality suffices for election, a majority of voters may have chosen someone other than the winner.”[293] [Emphasis added]

In an article entitled “The Electoral College Is Brilliant, and We Would Be Insane to Abolish It,” Walter Hickey writes:

“Without the electoral college system, a President could be elected with a plurality rather than an outright majority.”[294] [Emphasis added]

These three writers fail to mention that the current system of electing the President is identical to the National Popular Vote Compact in that it uses America’s traditional plurality-voting system.

No current federal constitutional provision or law requires that a candidate receive an absolute majority of the national popular vote in order to become President.

No current state law requires that a candidate receive an absolute majority of the state’s popular vote in order to win the state’s electoral votes.[295]

More than a third (16 of 46) of the nation’s Presidents up to 2020 came into office without winning an absolute majority of the national popular vote (and five of them came into office without even winning the most popular votes nationwide):

• John Quincy Adams in 1826
• James Polk in 1844
• Zachary Taylor in 1848
• James Buchanan in 1856
• Abraham Lincoln in 1860
• Rutherford Hayes in 1876
• James Garfield in 1880
• Grover Cleveland in 1884 and 1892
• Benjamin Harrison in 1888
• Woodrow Wilson in 1912 and 1916
• Harry Truman in 1948
• John Kennedy in 1960
• Richard Nixon in 1968
• Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996
• George W. Bush in 2000
• Donald Trump in 2016.

Lincoln was elected with 39% of the nationwide popular vote in 1860.

Presidential candidates frequently win a state’s electoral votes without receiving an absolute majority of its popular vote.

In 2016, no candidate received an absolute majority of the popular vote in 13 states (almost all of which were the closely divided battleground states that decided the 2016 election).

Donald Trump’s percentages of the popular vote in the six states from this group that he carried were:

• Arizona–48%
• Florida–49%
• Michigan–47%
• Pennsylvania–48%
• Utah–45%
• Wisconsin–47%

Hillary Clinton’s percentages of the popular vote in the seven states from this group that she carried were:

• Colorado–48%
• Maine–48%
• Minnesota–46%
• Nevada–48%
• New Hampshire–47%
• New Mexico–48%
• Virginia–49.8%

In 1992, no candidate received an absolute majority of the statewide popular vote in 49 of the 50 states.[296]

The public seems content with the plurality-vote system. There was certainly no outcry from the public, the media, Congress, or state legislators when Truman (1948), Kennedy (1960), Nixon (1968), or Clinton (1992 and 1996) were elected with less than an absolute majority of the national popular vote.

Moreover, the vast majority of all other elections in the United States are decided on the basis of winning a plurality of the popular votes (the so-called “first past the post” system) rather than an absolute majority.

Mayoral elections in Richmond, Virginia

We know of only one place in the United States that currently selects its chief executive using an Electoral College type of arrangement.

The Mayor of Richmond Virginia is chosen under a system that resembles the Electoral College in that it applies the winner-take-all rule to districts within the jurisdiction served by the office.

There are nine city-council districts in the city.

The Richmond City Charter (section 3.01.1) states:

“In the general election, the person receiving the most votes in each of at least five of the nine city council districts shall be elected mayor. Should no one be elected, then the two persons receiving the highest total of votes city wide shall be considered nominated for a runoff election. … In any such runoff election, write-in votes shall not be counted, and the person receiving the most votes in each of at least five of the nine city council districts shall be elected mayor.”[297], [298]

Footnotes

Tara Ross, a lobbyist against the National Popular Vote Compact who works closely with Save Our States, complains that the Compact does not require a run-off election when the leading candidate fails to win an absolute majority of the national popular vote:

“[Under the National Popular Vote Compact] no candidate is required to obtain majority support. [It] does not include a run-off provision. Electoral votes are given to the winner of any plurality—even a very small one.[299] [Emphasis added]

Of course, this criticism applies equally to the current system.

No state requires a run-off when the leading presidential candidate fails to receive an absolute majority of its popular vote.

Presidential candidates who did not receive an absolute majority of the state’s popular vote routinely win a state’s electoral votes.

No federal constitutional provision or law requires a run-off when the leading candidate fails to receive an absolute majority of the national popular vote.

After the 1992 election (in which no candidate received an absolute majority of the popular vote in 49 of the 50 states),[300] we cannot recall any demand from legislators, the public, the media, or anyone else for a run-off election.

The National Popular Vote Compact operates in a manner consistent with the widely held view in the United States that the winner of an election should be the candidate who receives the most popular votes (that is, a plurality).

As for Ross’ concern that “Electoral votes are given to the winner of any plurality—even a very small one,” the fact is that small pluralities frequently decide the outcome under the current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (section 1.3).

For example, George W. Bush received all of Florida’s electoral votes (and the presidency) because he received 537 more popular votes than Al Gore in Florida in 2000.

In 2016, Donald Trump received all of the electoral votes of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania by winning pluralities of 10,704 and 22,748 and 44,292 in those states, respectively.

Practical considerations concerning run-off elections

Run-offs, like all election procedures, have advantages and disadvantages.

Run-off elections could tilt the playing field in favor of a candidate who is in a position to come up with significant amounts of additional money on very short notice.

Run-off elections would increase the difficulty and cost of administering elections to some degree. It is already difficult to recruit the mass of citizen volunteers needed to conduct elections. It might be difficult to recruit volunteers on short notice after the first election.

The additional time to conduct a run-off election would be an additional consideration.

Before a run-off election for President could be called, it would be necessary to determine whether the run-off should be held in the first place. That is, it would be necessary to ascertain the results of the first election.

Finalization of the initial count of the first election requires processing all absentee ballots and all provisional ballots (a process that currently takes up to 10 days in some states). It also requires certifying all the local counts to the state official or board that, in turn, certifies the statewide result. This multi-step process typically attracts litigation in close presidential elections.

Then, if the leading candidate’s total vote in the first election happens to be close to the threshold for triggering a run-off, there could be a demand for a recount. Such demands typically lead to litigation (from the leading candidate) over whether the requested recount is justified.

Current federal law specifies that the Electoral College meets on the Tuesday after the second Wednesday in December—42 days after Election Day.

Absent a major streamlining of state election laws and procedures, an identical period (more or less) would be required to reach a final determination of the results of the first election of a two-election process.

At that point, the run-off campaign could commence.

Then, after the run-off, it would seem that a second period of 42 days (more or less) would be required to reach a final determination of the results of the run-off.

If, at some time in the future, the public decides that it wants the benefits of a run-off, ranked choice voting (also aptly referred to as “instant run-off voting”) offers a way to build the run-off into the initial election, thereby eliminating many of the disadvantages of a separate run-off election (section 9.27.1).

Footnotes