18
people who live in small states are in the position of winners under status quo
arrangements, while residents of large states are losers under the status quo. Again, half
of all respondents were randomly assigned the proposal framed either as a gain (more
influence) or a loss (less influence).
Table 6 about here
In Table 6, we divided our sample two ways. The first 2x2 divides subjects in
terms of whether they resided in a state with a small number of Electoral College votes
(less than 13), or in a state with a large number of Electoral College votes (13 or more).
In the second 2x2 in Table 6, subjects living in smaller states (again, less than 13
electoral votes) were compared to those living in very large states (more than 21 electoral
votes).
The results are quite consistent with our initial expectations (H3 and H4).
Reading across the top rows in each 2x2 in Table 6, we see that when the proposal to
change to direct election of the President was framed as a gain (“more influence”), there
were minor differences in support across those who were winners or losers under the
Electoral College status quo; curiously, 57% of status quo winners (small state residents)
favored the change, compared to 53% of status quo losers (large state residents) who did.
When this question was framed as a loss (“less influence”), however, substantial
differences emerged. Framed this way, only 46% of status quo winners favored change,
compared to 56% of status quo losers. Once again, we find that people who are winners
under the status quo were much less supportive of the proposal when it was framed as a
loss. Losers, in contrast, became slightly more supportive when the proposal was framed
as a loss. That is, we see that losers, beyond simply being neutral in their response to the
Convention