{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027972027972027972, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008741258741258742, 'mean_word_length': 5.2228260869565215, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Biases of the Electoral College in the 1990s

Over the years, there has been considerable interest in the empirical analysis of the electoral college.1 Many of these efforts have sought to assess the biases alleged, in conventional wisdom, to be contained in the electoral college. Among the structural features of the electoral college frequently cited as giving rise to biases are (1) the constant two constitutional allocation of two electoral votes to every state regardless of size (corresponding to its Senate representation) in addition to a variable number of electoral votes equal to its number of congressmen, (2) the winner-take-all extraconstitutional provision (sometimes termed the "unit rule" feature) that the candidate who receives a plurality of votes in a state wins all that state's electoral votes, (3) the assignment of electoral votes (other than the "constant two") to states on the basis of population rather than voter turnout, and (4) the assignment of electoral votes on the basis of census population figures, which reflect population shifts only at ten-year intervals.2 These features ensure that the electoral