Presidential Elections: Implications of a National Popular Vote

It happened in 1824. Again, it happened in 1876. And 1888. And then again in 2000. Most recently, in 2016. Five times the president has been elected through the Electoral College without attaining the popular vote. Is this a feature, bug, or necessary evil of the electoral system? While the support for the national popular vote movement has grown significantly in the past decade, there are many fervent opponents. Many of the adversaries to a popular vote system argue that under a national popular vote system, candidates would visit only the most densely populated areas in the country and then simply work to get all votes possible, gaining enough support to win the election without gaining much support from the rest of the country. To analyze these key arguments, this paper tests two hypotheses, the first of which is that under a popular vote system, densely populated areas are given more attention from presidential candidates than would be proportionately expected based on population. The second hypothesis is that candidates will spend more money on advertising per person in larger cities than in smaller cities. This paper will outline research from both a social media analysis and from a statistical analysis of specific state Senate elections and their media markets before concluding by refuting the two hypotheses and suggesting that a national popular vote system would not cause vast populations of Americans to be ignored any more than they currently are.