Is the Electoral College Obsolete?
by Richard Daub
When American citizens cast their votes on Election Day for the office of President of the United States, they are not actually doing something that will directly determine the outcome of the election. Instead, they are simply voicing their opinion to a body of officials known as 'electors,' who later cast the votes that really count and who are entrusted to follow the majority of their state's voter opinion as to who should be elected—although in most states they are not required to do so.
This system is known as the Electoral College, and it was instituted by the founding fathers of the United States in the 18th century as a safeguard against the relatively new concept of a nation's government leaders being chosen by its citizens—the overwhelming majority of whom were common people from all walks of life.
"This was the first modern experiment in democracy," said Dr. Robert Pastor, Director of the Center for Democracy and Election Management at American University, during a recent interview with The Erickson Tribune. "The Founding Fathers were somewhat concerned that if the president was directly elected, the population might behave irresponsibly. So they decided to introduce this idea of an autonomous institution called the 'Electoral College' that would elect the president, and therefore the people would indirectly elect him or her."
The Popular Vote: 'No legal significance'
In a presidential election, candidates vie for 538 electoral votes divided among the 50 states and the District of Columbia (the number of votes each state is allotted is based on the combined total of U.S. Senators and Representatives that state has in Congress). In order to claim victory, the candidate must accumulate a majority of at least 270 of these votes; in the event of a tie, the House of Representatives would then be called into session to elect the president from the three top candidates who received electoral votes, with each state receiving one vote to cast en bloc by that state's Representatives.
According the U.S. Department of State, "The Founding Fathers devised the Electoral College system as part of their plan to share power between the states and the national government. Under the federal system adopted in the Constitution, the nationwide popular vote has no legal significance."
The insignificance of the national popular vote is perhaps the most controversial aspect of the Electoral College system—just ask Al Gore, who won the popular vote by over 500,000 votes in 2000 yet still lost the election. This had only happened three times before (1824, 1876, and 1888), and the ensuing controversy helped reignite the debate as to whether or not the Electoral College is an antediluvian institution.
Even in presidential elections containing little drama, the results do not become official until two months later.
First, the electors have to convene in each state a month after the election in order to officially cast their votes. This is where the system is most vulnerable because a 'faithless elector' could go on his or her own and vote against the majority of the state's popular vote (very rarely does this happen, though, since doing so is virtually political suicide for that elector and is subject to legal action in 24 states).
Then, another month after the electors convene, Congress holds a session to count the electoral votes and officially declare the winner.
"There are very few democracies in the world that elect their leaders today indirectly," said Dr. Pastor. "They believe, as the U.S. does for all positions except the president, in 'one person-one vote,' and they elect their leaders directly. So, the United States is quite unique."
Attempts to Reform
There have been over 700 proposals made to Congress in the past 200 years to either reform or abolish the Electoral College, making it the undisputed leader for most constitutional amendment propositions. Despite the many attempts to reform this system, however, and the U.S. Department of State's claim that "public opinion polls have shown Americans favored abolishing it by majorities of 58 percent in 1967; 81 percent in 1968; and 75 percent in 1981," the law has never really come close to being changed.
This is mostly due to the difficult nature of passing a constitutional amendment. Doing so requires two-thirds of both houses of Congress to propose the amendment, which would then have to be ratified by three-quarters of the states—many of which perceive themselves as having an advantage in the Electoral College system over more populated states.
Wyoming, for example, has three electoral votes, and California has 55—approximately 18 times as many. Yet, California has 70 times the population of Wyoming. Therefore, Wyoming and other less populated states feel that their citizens' votes count more than the vote of a citizen in California and are resistant to advocating any measures that would change this.
This is one reason why California Senator Dianne Feinstein would like to see a more balanced system.
"The Electoral College is an anachronism and the time has come to bring our democracy into the 21st Century," she stated in a December 2004 press release. "During the founding years of the Republic, the Electoral College may have been a suitable system, but today it is flawed and amounts to national elections being decided in several battleground states."
Others, however, disagree. In an October 2004 interview that aired on NPR's Morning Edition, State University of New York at Cortland political science professor Judith Best, author of The Case Against Direct Election of the President, said, "Primarily, the role of the election is to select a president who can govern this vast and heterogeneous nation. A presidential election is not a census or even a public opinion poll. It's not designed to break down the population into separate isolated individuals and treat them as mere numbers. It's designed to bring together the largest possible support for the winner."
'The National Popular Vote Proposal'
All but two states use the 'winner-takes-all' system of awarding electoral votes, meaning that the candidate who wins the popular vote in that state receives all of that state's electoral votes. The exceptions are Maine and Nebraska, who split their votes and award them based on which candidate wins the congressional districts and who wins the state's overall popular vote.
In an effort to prevent future instances of a candidate winning the national popular vote but still losing the election, a plan known as 'The National Popular Vote Proposal' was recently approved by legislatures in Colorado and California. This plan basically suggests that, instead of awarding that state's block of electoral votes to the candidate who won the popular vote in that state, they would instead go to the candidate who won the national popular vote. The theory is that, if enough states do this, the winner of the national popular vote will almost surely win the election. In addition, a new element of relevancy will be brought to states such as California, Texas, and New York, which are often ignored by presidential candidates because the outcome is generally assumed.
Will the Electoral College Ever Be Abolished?
"One should never say 'never,'" said Dr. Pastor when asked if the Electoral College will ever be abolished. "The trouble with electoral reform, of course, is that politicians who have succeeded in the system are asked to change a system in which they've done quite well, and therefore are not inclined to make such changes. That applies to not only the Electoral College, but to other election reforms as well. But, it's not to say it's impossible to make those reforms—however, it is very difficult, and it usually requires a crisis similar to the election of 2000." §
Published in The Erickson Tribune, June 2006 |
