THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE- IS IT OUTDATED?

 

In an earlier essay I discussed whether the Senate filibuster is a threat to democracy. I concluded that it was not, based primarily on the fact that the United States is a constitutional republic, not a democracy. Now I turn my attention to another item of controversy in our current political climate- the Electoral College.

When our Constitutional Founders created our constitutional republic, they were concerned about how to elect the chief executive- the president. They rejected a lifetime appointment which would turn the position into a monarchy. We just rejected one king with our blood and treasure and we were not about to create one of our own. Yet the Founders were also fearful of an democratic election of the president- the one with the most votes wins. As I stated in my earlier essay, The Founders equated democracy with mob rule. So, they created electors to serve as the “middlemen” to elect the president. Then college was added extra-constitutionally to give us the term Electoral College as we know it today.

Originally, the process would begin by the selection of electors in each state either by the state legislatures or by popular vote. The number of electors for each state was determined by the number of people elected to the House of Representatives plus two for each sate for the number of senators they had. Each elector was to vote for two persons for the presidency. When all the votes were tallied the one with the most electoral votes was elected president and the one with the second most votes was elected vice president. If no one

had a majority of votes the House woold vote for the president and the Senate for vice president. This system worked for the first eight years (1789-1797) while George Washington was president and then it broke down.

The Founders had failed to recognize the growth and influence of political rivalries that crystallized into organized parties. The Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans were in full force by the 1796 election. John Adams of the Federalists won the presidency, but Thomas Jefferson of the Democratic-Republicans was elected vice president. Although both men were present at the “creation” in 1776 they were unlike in temperament, personality, and politically. No “Adams-Jefferson” Administration here! The electoral system was cracking.

But the electoral system outright broke with the 1800 election. Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr were tied with the electors and the House of Representatives had to choose the president. Jefferson eventually won with Burr becoming vice president. The Twelfth Amendment in 1804 changed the electoral system to the one we have currently in which each elector casts a vote for president and another vote for vice president. Nevertheless, the House also had to select the president in 1824 and in 1876 a special commission in effect selected the president when several electoral votes were disputed.

The Electoral College usually gives us a clear winner whereas the popular vote at times will not. In 1860 Lincoln had only 40 percent of the popular vote among four major candidates but was a clear winner with the electors. Kennedy in 1960 and Clinton in 1992 and 1996 had a plurality of the popular votes and were clear winners among the electors. Thus, the Electoral College helps avoid the confusion of who is elected president.

Critics of the Electoral College, however, point to the elections in which one candidate is the clear winner in popular votes and yet loses the electoral votes. For example, in 2016 Clinton had three million more votes than Trump but Trump beat Clinton decisively in the Electoral College. Trump’s victory was predicated by razor-thin popular victories in several key states which awarded him all their electoral votes.

Other critics, perhaps less partisan, point to the decisive red/blue political divide today in the United States. One party can almost guarantee victories in about 15-20 states and the other party about the same. So that makes only a handful of states presidential candidates must home in on and they can generally ignore the others except for appearances at major fund raisers and sending in surrogate to campaign on their behalf. Electoral proponents counter this criticism by claiming only the most populous states, generally on either coast, would elect presidents in a national popular vote only.

In conclusion after this brief history and civics lesson, I offer my own opinions:

• 1.     The Electoral College fits in comfortably with our constitutional republic form of government. (Remember, we do not have a democracy as described by our Constitution.)
• 2.    The Electoral College is an essential piece of our federalism between the states and the national government. Small states receive a small measure of “greater” clout through the Senate and the Electoral College through compromises agreed upon at the Convention of 1787.

• 3.     The Electoral College generally gives us a clear-cut winner for president.

• 4.    The Electoral College does need reform. One plan calls for states to pledge their electors to the candidate receiving the most popular votes nationally rather than state-wide. While this plan has some traction, I believe it to be unconstitutional. I prefer the Nebraska/Maine plan which both states currently use. If s state sneds five members to the House and if two candidates split that state’s congressional districts 3/2 they would be awarded accordingly- one would receive three electoral votes and the other two votes. Then the popular winner of the entire state would receive the additional two electoral votes. In 2016, Trump received one vote from Maine and in 2020, Biden received one vote from Nebraska. I do not have the research to know if this system used in all states would have changed an election but it does give the appearance of being more fair than a winner-take -all system. And all that is needed is state legislation to make it happen.

Finally, I believe the Electoral College is essential to our presidential election process and is here to stay. Nevertheless, it needs a small reform.