Scroll down to explore.
Hover with your mouse
to see details of each state.
The United States is often heralded as the standard bearer of democratic government. Since its ratification in
1788, the American constitution has set the rules for the separation of powers into three branches: the
executive, the legislative and the judicial branch. Together, these three branches maintain and update the social contract
between American citizens and their elected government. Yet, despite its revolutionary success in creating,
arguably the most successful democracy that has ever lived, the constitution contains various archaic and
inequitable articles inscribed in it. Some of the most anachronistic articles are those that set the statutes by which
citizens elect their representatives.
From obscure positions such as super intendent of public instruction to
the momentous head of the executive branch, various offices in the land are subject to democratic elections.
Different positions serve different purposes, yet none other hold as much sway and power as do the offices of
representative of congress, federal senator, and president. It is through these three bodies, which together
make up the legislative and executive branch, that rules and regulations become laws of the land. Thus, the
power of legislation falls into the citizens who through their vote elect and hold such leaders accountable.
But, despite their influence and importance, the mechanisms by which these leaders are elected remain highly
unjust, giving oversized influence to certain geographies of the country while undermining the democratic right
of others. The electoral college is the paragon example of an anachronistic system that gives certain areas in
the country outsized democratic power often leading to minority rule.
In this project, we set out to visualize how democratic power is unequally distributed across American states
for the three offices mentioned above, making the case for much needed electoral reform.
One of the bedrock principles of a democracy is the idea that decisions are made through majority consensus with each individual citizen decision maker having equal sway. As such, it is important to first understand how the American populace distributes across the country. It is obvious by looking at the map on the left that the American population is not equally distributed across all 50 states. More than 30% of the country’s population lives in the four most populous states (California, Texas, Florida, and New York) while there are dozens of states (Montana, Wyoming, New Hamphsire, etc) that count less than 1% of the country’s inhabitants as residents.
Despite the highly irregular population density across states, we can get insights into the distribution of democratic power by using a normalized measure such as the number of representatives per a hundred thousand residents. Ideally, we would want all citizens, regardless of their geography, to have equal representation in federal offices. While not perfectly even, the number of representatives in congress per one hundred thousand residents seems similar for all states, with most states having between .10 and .15 representatives per a hundred thousand residents. Another way to understand this same concept is by checking if the percentage of representatives in a certain state matches the percentage of the total US population resident in that state. So, in a completely just system, that ratio would be one-to-one.
Unlike congress, whose apportionment of its four hundred and thirty-five seats is roughly based on the population of each state, the senate is divided equally among states with each state holding two senate seats. Obviously, when using the same measure as above, and calculating the number of senators per a hundred thousand residents we get drastic variance among states. Highly populated states such as California and Texas (who make up around 20% of the country’s population) have barely .01 senators per 100,000 residents. Highly uninhabited states such as Wyoming, North Dakota, Vermont, etc. have more than .3 senators per 100,000 residents. In other words, a state like Wyoming has 35 times more senatorial representation than a state like California. Such an imbalance in power seems untenable, yet despite various ideas on how to reform this, it is highly improbable a legislative fix will come any time soon.
There exist various arguments for the 2 senator per state rule, one, often mentioned, is that having two senators allows rural/sparsely populated states avoid being ruled by distant urban metropolis. Yet, such argument fails to hold water, since it is not only the senate but also the executive which is elected through a highly unequal system. The president of the United States is elected through the electoral college, by which any candidate who achieves the elusive 270 electoral votes wins the presidency. In this winner take all basis, except for Maine and Nebraska, candidates win all electoral votes in any givens state, if they end up with the highest vote share for that state. As with the Senate, such a system creates a highly unequal voting power among the country’s citizens. Using the examples of above, Wyoming holds .53 electoral votes per 100,000 residents. California, on the other hand, holds only .15 electoral votes per 100,000 residents. Thus, residents of sparsely populated states not only have outsized power in the senate, but they also have outsized power in electing the most important public official in the entire country. Such system creates the conditions for minority rule in which a president is elected with less than 50% of the vote, as has happened in two of the last five presidential elections. There are many, many, many arguments in favor of electoral college reform, as well as some against. None the less, it is safe to say, that the current electoral system does not accurately represent the popular will.
Under a fully representative and just electoral system, the percent of the population living in a particular state should match that percentage of electoral votes that state has. Alas, this is not the case and has not been the case throughout the entire XXth century.All of the data presented in the previous figures where using 2010 census data, below you can explore how democratic power changed throughout the 20th century. Choose different census years in the bottom left slider and hover with your mouse to see the percentage share of electoral votes as a fraction of a states percent population.
US Electoral votes per state: Kaggle dataset
US population by state by census: Iowa Data Center
US Census apportionement and representatives: Census.gov
Thanks to the entire CAPP Data Viz cohort of Winter 2021 and to Andrew McNutt for being a patient and dedicated instructor.