Electoral College 4: Bias?

Is there a pro-Republican bias in the electoral college?

I wrote here about the manner in which the allocation of electoral votes to the states, as prescribed by the Constitution, favors the smaller states.

In 2004, George Bush's electoral votes came disproportionately from the smaller states. The average Bush state had 9.23 electoral votes, while the average Kerry state had 13.1. Even if California (which gave 55 electoral votes to Kerry) is removed from the calculation, the Kerry states' average is still higher than Bush's, at 10.8.

To measure how much effect that had on the outcome, I notionally allocated electoral votes to the states in proportion to their population. In other words, according to their representation in the U.S. House of Representatives, rather than their total of representatives and senators. There are still some rounding errors, but that removes the bias toward the smaller states. I allocated one elector to the District of Columbia.

If electors had been allocated on that basis in 2004, Bush would still have won a majority in the electoral college, by 224 to 212. But it reduces Bush's percentage of the electoral votes from the actual 53.16% to 51.38%.

Applying that same calculation to the 2000 presidential election results changes the outcome. Gore would have won a majority in the electoral college, 225 to 211.

This year, Obama might pick up some of the small western states that have often voted Republican in the past, such as North Dakota, Montana, Nevada and New Mexico. So maybe the math will work out differently this year. And, if the 2008 election results in a long-term partisan realignment, as some speculate, perhaps any Republican bias in the electoral college will not be a permanent factor.