New Mass. Law Could Cut Its Citizens' Voting Power Says Inventor of Banzhaf Index

July 28, 2010 - PRLog -- Massachusetts' new law, designed to help nullify the Electoral College by requiring state electors to vote as a block for the national popular vote winner in presidential contests, could cut the power of its citizens to affect elections, according to the inventor of the Banzhaf Index of Voting Power, a mathematical tool designed to analyze voting power in complex situations, and used by many sources to measure the voting power of individual citizens under the Electoral College.

"Contrary to the simplistic assumption that voters in less populous states have the most voting power -- because each state, no matter how few its residents, still gets three electoral votes -- it is the citizens in the more populous states who actually have the largest chance of affecting the outcome of presidential elections by and through their vote," says Professor John Banzhaf of George Washington University, who created the Banzhaf Index.

Citizens of Massachusetts -- the 15th most populous state with 6,593,587 citizens -- currently have more power to affect the outcome of presidential elections than citizens in most other states because the state has 12 votes in the Electoral College; more than 36 other states and the District of Columbia.

The likelihood that a switch in Massachusetts' 12 electoral votes could turn the tide is much greater than a similar chance any one of the great majority of states with a smaller number of electoral vote could change the outcome, so its voters have greater voting power in presidential elections even though it takes more of them to constitute a majority.  "That's what voting power is," says Banzhaf, "the chance, however small, to affect the outcome of an election by casting a decisive vote."

Although voters in Massachusetts have greater voting power than citizens of the great majority of states, they have less voting power than the huge number of voters in the most populous states which can dominate presidential elections.  Indeed, the 11 most populous states represent over 55% of the country's population, and, because they have a majority of the Electoral College votes, have more than enough electoral votes to elect the president regardless of how citizens in other states vote.

Thus, if Massachusetts' plan becomes effective in nullifying the Electoral College because states with a majority of electoral votes adopt similar legislation, citizens of the Bay State will actually gain voting power compared with a majority of Americans.

Since a major underlying philosophy of the legislation is the equalize the voting power of all Americans, the new law will help achieve that purpose, but exactly which state's residents will gain or lose the most voting power is probably unclear to both supporters and opponents, says Banzhaf.

In addition to its theoretical effect on voting power, nullifying the Electoral College might arguably benefit all residents of Massachusetts because the state tends to vote so solidly Democratic in most elections.  For example, the state has voted for a Democrat in 8 of the last 10 presidential elections.

Thus, Republicans in Massachusetts may be concerned that their vote is often meaningless because it will be overwhelmed in most presidential elections by Democrats, and Democrats may feel that there is no point in casting a vote in Massachusetts since a Democratic majority is virtually guaranteed anyway.  Under the nullification law, each might feel that they had a more realistic chance to have their vote actually count.

"The mathematics of the Electoral College are only one of many factors which should be considering in deciding whether to support legislation like that in Massachusetts which could effectively nullify it, but it is important to understand the mathematical analysis because it can tell whose ox would be gored if a sufficient number of states adopted similar laws," says Banzhaf.

Prof. Banzhaf's analysis of the Electoral College has been reported in many books as well as scientific papers, and is even taught in many college and high school courses.  It was also the subject of congressional hearings, and provided the basis for a number of editorials in major newspapers.

PROFESSOR JOHN F. BANZHAF III
Professor of Public Interest Law
George Washington University Law School
FAMRI Dr. William Cahan Distinguished Professor,
FELLOW, World Technology Network
2013 H Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006, USA
(202) 659-4310 // (703) 527-8418
http://banzhaf.net/