Nathan Moore's Thoughts
The Uninformed Tennessean’s View of the Electoral College
Every now and again, the tired argument against the electoral college comes up. People forget we are a republic, and proceed to make suggestions consistent with another form of government. The Tennessean advances afoot with the title Make Electoral College Reflect Overall Popular Vote. Of course, if that is their actual position, the paper needs to close the logical loophole and simply advocate the complete abolition of the system.
The first amateurish argument is that
Technically, it would be possible for a candidate to win as few as 11 elector-rich states and be elected president. This fact in particular has helped fuel the national popular vote movement. Because a small number of states have become decisive, candidates have no incentive to campaign in two-thirds of the states; in effect, disenfranchising much of the electorate. According to nationalpopularvote.com, in the 2004 campaign, candidates concentrated more than 66 percent of money and visits in just five states.
Well, yes - the five states likely to swing, due to the electoral votes they possessed. If there wasn’t a focus on swing states, there would be a focus on swing cities. In any event, if the electoral college was abolished, the number of population centers focused upon would go down, not up. The smaller states get more votes per elector. This sort of ridiculous analysis by The Tennessean’s editorial board ought to have been crumpled up hours before the deadline.
The second installment of The Tennessean’s amateur hour comes in its description of the rationale for the electoral college
There was once a good reason for the Electoral College. The Founding Fathers feared that in direct popular elections, uninformed voters would choose only candidates from their own region, leading to chaotic election challenges.
But time has passed by this tenet of the usually timeless Constitution. The U.S. now has a strong party system and modern communication is such that presidential nominees are known nationwide.
The textbooks nowadays must be awful. From Federalist 68
It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.
In short, the electoral college is the one, last safeguard to preserve the republic. The reasons for its existence extend beyond regional prejudice, as The Tennessean erroneously implies. And if they think small states get short shrift now, just imagine how the smaller states will be treated by national campaigns when their populations are compared to that of the largest cities.
The electoral college is one of the geniuses of the Founders. Let’s not screw that up, too.
April 21st, 2008 at 4:18 pm
[...] Moore comments on what he sees as a misguided analysis of the electoral college: In short, the electoral college [...]
April 23rd, 2008 at 8:14 am
The electoral college once protected the smaller states from the larger ones. Now it stands stalwart protecting rural culture and values from urban control nuts who know and care nothing about rural culture and values. Do we really want the next election decided by LA, Detroit, Chicago, Houston, Miami and New York City? The result of the elimination of the electoral college would be that candidates would only cater to the wants, desires and ideal of the urban population centers. It would totally devastate our country.
April 23rd, 2008 at 11:28 am
Do presidential electors really function as a group of wise men who safeguard the republic? No, they’re a bunch of party hacks.
In 2000, the closest recent election, former Senator Baker resigned as an elector at the last moment so that he could be replaced by his grandson.
Their textbooks aren’t really so awful. The electoral college was originally a proslavery institution. It, in conjunction with the 3/5 clause, assured that all but one of the first five Presidents would be from Virginia.
April 23rd, 2008 at 11:50 am
I’m not sure I said they were wise men, any more than senators are “wiser” than house members. The electoral college is simply another safeguard against a mobocracy. If the Founders thought direct democracy was preferable, we’d be the United States of Athens. Besides, there had been 124 years between the travails of 1876 and 2000. Not bad, considering that the Framers couldn’t foresee the effects of the modern media on general election turnout.
If direct democracy is truly preferable, we might as well go ahead and abolish the congress.
April 23rd, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Heck…. with congress’ approval ratings where they are right now, sounds like the country already has …
April 23rd, 2008 at 1:42 pm
The electoral college system broke down almost immediately in 1800.
Republican Party platforms in 1948, 1960, and 1968 called for the reform of the electoral college system. Perhaps these were somewhat self-serving in 1948 and 1968 because there were major third party candidates running.
In 1948, Henry Wallace got almost as many votes as Strom Thurmond. Thurmond got 39 electoral votes because his votes were concentrated in the South. Henry Wallace got no electoral votes at all because his popular votes were scattered throughout the country. In 1992, Ross Perot received nearly 19% of the national popular vote, but didn’t get a single electoral vote. In 1968, George Wallace got 13.5% of the popular vote and received 46 electoral votes, again because his votes were concentrated in one region of the country.
In 1960, Harry Byrd got 15 electoral votes although he wasn’t on the ballot in a single state.
Suppose that I concede that everything you say about the electoral college itself is correct? What about the tie breaker? If a third party candidate is strong enough to win even a single state, there’s always the possibility of the election being thrown into the House of Representatives, under arcane rules with each state delegation getting one vote. Fortunately this hasn’t happened since 1824. Do you think this is a good system.
Personally, I prefer — dare I say it — the French mobocratic system, with an election and a run-off between the two top candidates. I think results like the result in 2000, where the candidate who loses the popular vote winds up being inaugurated, are bad for the country regardless of which party wins. I recognize that there are major flaws with the system the Tennessean proposes. It probably is worse than just keeping the current system. The reason people make such proposals is the difficulty of getting rid of the current system through a constitutional amendment.
April 24th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
The overall point of the electoral system is that the states maintain prominence in selecting the executive of the federal government.
I have no problem with the tie break going to the states, where the representatives selected by the people determine who becomes the chief executive.
The electoral college system is not supposed to simply confirm the popular vote. The electoral college preserves the states’ contract with the union, so that more populous states are not able to coerce and dominate less populous states. Making the process more democratic, or mob-centric, begins the process of making the states irrelevant. The fifty states are sovereigns that have delegated certain powers to the center, not administrative districts to be further marginalized by skipping them for direct democracy.
I am perfectly happy in keeping with empowering the states. It works. And it works well. We are a young country. It is too early to say that the electoral college is arcane because no single individual has threatened to destroy the republic from within. Let’s not make it possible simply because it hasn’t happened yet.
April 24th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
So if McCain wins the popular vote, but the Democratic candidate wins the electoral vote, you’re fine with that?
April 24th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
Yes.
April 25th, 2008 at 11:02 am
Thank you for taking the time to read my opinion on how to reform the Electoral College. I believe that eventually this will be an important issue for our State Legislature to take on.
The simple solutions suggested below both retains the college and provides most of the democratic advantages of having the votes of individual citizens matter. Since an elector (a whole human being) cannot be divided, replace the concept of electoral vote with electoral number or weight, which can be divided into arbitrarily small units. Instead of each state having certain amounts of electoral votes which much be all in favor of one candidate, have the electoral number be divided in direct proportion to the vote count of the candidates. The sizes of these smaller units would be reported to the electoral college and they would reflect the desires of the citizens of the state in a much more democratic way than the present electoral system. Each state would have the size of its total electoral number or weight reported to the electoral college equal to its present electoral vote number (the total number of congressional members, Representatives and Senators). This is in keeping with the small state - large state compromise that formed the centerstone of our Republic.
Thus, for example, if the Republican presidential candidate gets 49% of the vote, and the Democratic candidate get 51% then the 9 electoral weight for Tennessee would be 4.41 for the Republican candidate and 4.59 for the Democratic candidate.
A possible problem of the above proposal is that significant third party candidates could throw the election into the House of Representatives. An alternative to the above would divide the electoral number but always rounded off in such a way that it is always a whole number, a number of electoral votes. It would be rounded up for the winner. This could go as follows: I will use the example of Tennessee with its 9 electoral votes. In order for a candidate to receive 1 electoral vote he must receive at least 1/9 or about 11%. In order for a candidate to receive 3 electoral vote he must receive at least 3/9 or about 33%. And so on. So, if the Democratic candidate received 49% of the vote and the Republican 48% and the independent 3%, then instead of the Democratic candidate receiving 4.41 electoral votes, the Republican 4.32 electoral votes and the independent 0.27 electoral votes, the independent would get no electoral votes, the Democratic candidate would receive 5 and the Republican 4. In extreme case like candidate D receiving 53%, R receiving 35% and I 12%, D would get 5 electoral votes, R would get 3 and I 1. But if candidate D receiving 56%, R receiving 32% and I 10%, D would get 6 electoral votes, R would get 3 and I 0. Although not as fair numerically as the electoral number system it would be much less likely to end up in the House of Representatives and it is certainly more just than the present system.
I would greatly appreciate your comments or suggestions
Best Regards
Horace Crater
310 Oakwood Cove
La Vergne, TN
37086
April 25th, 2008 at 11:41 am
Horace,
I fully understand your proposed changes. Understandably, I have a hard time discussing any reforms of the electoral college system because I do not think it is broken.
The original system was very republican in nature. Most proposed reforms, including the one you discuss, erodes small-r republicanism. For very important reasons, the Founders placed limits on the reach of American democracy.
The most important functioning constant of the American system is the delegation of power. In the federalist model as it was originally envisioned, the majority of that delegated power rested in the individual states, which included the mechanism for selecting the executive.
Proportionalizing to the degree you discuss inches us away from democratic republicanism. America has long maintained a winner-take-all view of her elections. I think it has served us well.
April 25th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
Nathan,
Our Founding Fathers had the wisdom to know that they were fallable so they put in the mechanisms by which we could amend the constitution as changing times might dictate.
I believe that the present electoral system creates a lot of apathy, especially in states that have a fairly consistant majority in one party. On the other hand I believe it would be wrong-headed to go to a directly popular presidential elections. I would hope that compromises such as I have recommended would be considered.
April 27th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
One obvious problem with a proportional system would be that it would greatly increase that no candidate would get a majority in the electoral college.
For example, in 1992, Ross Perot got 20% of the popular vote in Calfornia. Under a proportional system, that would seem to entitle Perot to 10 or 11 electoral votes from California alone. If a third party candidate had received. Ten electoral votes for a third party candidate in 2000 would have almost certainly meant that the House of Representatives would have decided the election.
As I’ve indicated, I’m no fan of the electoral college system, but I think the tie-break in the House of Representatives is absolutely the worst feature of the system.