Working Paper: NBER ID: w26247
Authors: Michael Geruso; Dean Spears; Ishaana Talesara
Abstract: Inversions—in which the popular vote winner loses the election—have occurred in four US presidential races. We show that rather than being statistical flukes, inversions have been ex ante likely since the early 1800s. In elections yielding a popular vote margin within one point (one-eighth of presidential elections), about 40% will be inversions in expectation. We show this conditional probability is remarkably stable across historical periods—despite differences in which groups voted, which states existed, and which parties participated. Our findings imply that the US has experienced so few inversions merely because there have been so few elections (and fewer close elections).
Keywords: No keywords provided
JEL Codes: H0; J1; K16
Edges that are evidenced by causal inference methods are in orange, and the rest are in light blue.
| Cause | Effect |
|---|---|
| probability of electoral inversions in close elections (decided by a margin of one percentage point or less) (K16) | high probability of inversion (C69) |
| electoral college's aggregation mechanism (D79) | significant partisan asymmetries (D72) |
| allocation of electors disproportionately favorable to smaller states (D72) | electoral inversions (D72) |
| winner-takes-all approach (D72) | potential for inversions (C69) |
| historical rarity of close elections (K16) | few inversions historically (N93) |
| probability of a Republican winning an inversion (D72) | systematic advantage for Republicans (D72) |