Ditch The Electoral College? Not On Your Life
It rears its ugly head from time to time, this idea that the Electoral College is old, outdated, and ready for the dust heap. The irony (if you can call it that – perhaps the willful ignorance) is that the very aspect of its ‘outdatedness’ is the self-same aspect that caused the founders to adopt it in the first place – its levelling of the playing field between rural and urban America. Pete du Pont is not fooled:
…[T]he direct election of presidents would lead to geographically narrower campaigns, for election efforts would be largely urban. In 2000 Al Gore won 677 counties and George Bush 2,434, but Mr. Gore received more total votes. Circumvent the Electoral College and move to a direct national vote, and those 677 largely urban counties would become the focus of presidential campaigns.
Rural states like Maine, with its 740,000 votes in 2004, wouldn’t matter much compared with New York’s 7.4 million or California’s 12.4 million votes. Rural states’ issues wouldn’t matter much either; big-city populations and urban issues would become the focus of presidential campaigns. America would be holding urban elections, and that would change the character of campaigns and presidents.
Indeed, detractors of the Electoral College seem to miss the fundamental distinction between a republic and a democracy, and the concept of ‘federalism’:
California’s Sen. Dianne Feinstein says the Electoral College violates “one person, one vote,” and so we should have direct election of the president. But the equal allocation of two senators to each state also violates “one person, one vote.” Montana, with 900,000 people, gets two senators and so does California with 34 million, so Feinstein’s logic would say that California should have 12 senators, and Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont should share just one among them.
Might not “one person, one vote” allow a national vote to amend the Constitution instead of requiring approval by three-quarters of the states? To restrict freedom of speech, or expand searches and seizures, or modify any of the Bill of Rights?
One wonders if the direct election of presidents is really the beginning of an effort to bring national government under the control of large and liberal states. Common Cause, a Washington-based lobbying group that describes itself as “promoting open, honest and accountable government,” argues “how neatly it fits with American tradition.” But it doesn’t. It contradicts our constitutional republic’s state and federal government sharing of powers. Choosing presidents is one of our states’ powers, and we should not remove it to begin a centralized national American government.
This is not a concept that we grow out of; it’s a crucial aspect of our system of government…
“Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner”.
- James Bovard -
I agree. I happen to like the fact that aspriing Presidential candidates need to campaign in Ohio, and New Mexico. If we abandoned the electoral college, candidates would campaign in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Atlanta, and that’s pretty much it. And their views would affect the rest of the country. Seems fair.
I would accept a modification to the electoral college. I’ve brought this up before, but I’ve never seen a writeup on how the last two elections would have turned out using it. Maybe I should take the time and do it myself.
Anyway, here’s my proposal:
Break the electoral college votes down by Congressional district. The candidate that wins that district gets that vote. And the candidate that wins the whole state gets the extra two votes for the Senate. This seems like a fairer compromise, but, as I said, I haven’t run the data to see how it would turn out.
The Electoral Colleges also puts a cap on the effectiveness of fraud. The most anyone can do now, no matter how corrupt they are, is flip one state. Moreover, most times it’s not even worth the effort. (If your state is going for your party legally, why stuff the ballot box at all?) However, in a direct election the most corrupt would have the greatest chance to flip the entire election plus all the illegal votes help nationally, no matter which way your state election goes. For example, if we moved to a direct election, somehow New Orleans or Chicago etc would mysteriously have 12 million new voters in time to be counted for 2008.
Breaking the electoral college is disolution of the very principals which made us the United States.
Smaller states made an agreement to join the ‘new’ american government based upon equal representation of each territory/state.
If anyone should back out of the agreement, it makes null and void the very tenets of the agrement which brought us together. It would be as if the fools who saw to this plan would be telling states to secede.
Likewise a popular vote would produce candidates only from highly populated states.
I appreciate the right of citizens to be represented, but our govt is founded upon the pricnpal agreement that we only have two senators from each state. Logical? no. Accepted?yes.
Chris: your proposal for proportional allocation of State’s Electoral College electors would, I think, mimic and deliver the same result as a direct election of the President by the voters.
The office of the President is the only office not elected by direct popular vote. It is also the only real national office (leave out the VP, for obvious reasons). As such it is critical that the President be a true representative of ALL the people, with no particular bias or obligation to any one State or region. Thus the Electoral College is, to me, the best time-tested way to elect a President.
It’s good to see such clear thinking in all of the comments so far. Fred really hit the nail on the head, though. The Electoral College System will always give America a legitimate President.
Actually re: Chris’ suggestion, I think Maine already awards their electoral votes just the way he described. And I think too many steves is right. If all the states chose to award their electoral votes that way (and if I’m pretty sure it’s the states’ prerogative), then the small population states where one or two electoral votes might up for grabs would be ignored in favor of large population states where fifteen or twenty votes might be at stake.
Each state legislature is free to set up any system it wants with its electoral votes right now. It’s just that any system that splits a state’s vote makes it that much less important. For example, if say a state has 5 votes. Right now, each candidate sees a swing of 5 either for him or against him. If the legislature said it will divide the electoral vote as close to the voters’ choice as possible, it will usually be a 3 to 2 division. So instead of winning or losing 5 votes the stakes are reduced to 1 vote either way.
Is it just democrats trying to change the Presidential elections? If so, there has to be a big reason that gives them more power somewhere.
If I am correct there have been four times where the winner of the presidential election did not carry the popular vote with 2000 being the last. Before that it was in the 1880’s. If they think Gore was screwed in the 2000 election, they should check out what happened to Andrew Jackson in the 1824 election. Didn’t Colorado just defeat an attempt to try to allocate those electoral votes based on proportionality?
As stated, this concept undermines the entire philosophy of a Republic. I think Feinstein resents that Montana has just as much power as California in the Senate. What part of we live in a Republic, not a democracy don’t they understand.
Talk about short-sighted.
In addition to all of the above; All the data shows that progressives either aren’t reproducing enough, or aborting their replacements (I believe I saw abirth rate of 1.4 vs 2.8 for conservatives and 4.3 for muslims).
What happens 20 years from now and the nutroots are out numbered 3 to 2 by the right and 3 to 1 by muslims on the ‘left’ – what want to see Sharia take center stage on the political/judicial front, eh?
Hmmm,the Conservatives/Independents/Libertarians/Moderates trying to wrest back the Republic, and the ‘Dearborn-istans’, ‘Caliph-ornistan’ and other Islamicheavy regions trying to impose the American incarnation of the taliban with the popular vote, with the progressives relegated to the nosebleed section.
Yeah, like Muffin said, “what part of Republic don’t they understand”…!
I happen to agree about the Electoral College. Where I don’t agree is where this viewpoint is getting attributed to some nefarious liberal or democratic scheme, just because Feinstein said something. I’m a liberal, and I don’t think the Electoral College should be abolished. Moreover, I know plenty of conservatives who think it should.
More than trying to win advantage for their “side,” many who’d like to see a general Presidential election simply don’t know what they’re talking about, and don’t have any desire to get to know what they’re talking about.
But for the author of the quoted article, and several commenters, to attribute it all to some liberal plot, well, let’s just say I must have missed the meeting where the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy decided that this was an action item.
Well, Fargus, I don’t think it’s a monolithic plot, but it is a pretty obvious fact that such a change would prove of far greater benefit to the left than the right, based on urban versus rural voting patterns.
I agree, however, that this is rather beside the point – the main reason to oppose the move is that it just isn’t compatible with the idea of the ‘United States’ in its literal meaning…
Ok, I did two minutes of research on my proposal.
too many steves, based upon my two minutes of research, you’re incorrect.
PRESIDENTIAL RESULTS BY CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT
Districts:1992199620002004
Democrat256280207180
Republican179155228255
Looking at the states for these elections:
States:1992199620002004
Democrat32312019
Republican18193031
Those were eyeball counts from various maps. I could’ve gotten them wrong. I couldn’t find a site that had “how many states did X win in year Y”. Odd.
Anyway, so based upon my proposal, here are the results:
Electoral Count:1992199620002004
Democrat320342247218
Republican215193288317
Note that it appears that I’ve lost DC, because my count adds up to 535 everywhere and not 536. So, add one to all the Democrats.
In every case, my results mirrors the currently accepted electoral college result. I think that such a proposal limits the effectiveness of campaigning in highly populated areas and would force a candidate to campaign across country. Why? Look at Chicago. Unless you pick up every district in the Chicago area, you’re only going to gain a few EV’s. Your opponent is going to pick up some. Right now you could campaign in Chicago and hope to pick up all of Illinois.
Damn…what happened to my tables?
Ok, I did two minutes of research on my proposal.
too many steves, based upon my two minutes of research, you’re incorrect.
PRESIDENTIAL RESULTS BY CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT
Districts:1992,1996,2000,2004
Democrat,256,280,207,180
Republican,179,155,228,255
Looking at the states for these elections:
States:1992,1996,2000,2004
Democrat,32,31,20,19
Republican,18,19,30,31
Those were eyeball counts from various maps. I could’ve gotten them wrong. I couldn’t find a site that had “how many states did X win in year Y”. Odd.
Anyway, so based upon my proposal, here are the results:
Electoral Count:1992,1996,2000,2004
Democrat,320,342,247,218
Republican,215,193,288,317
Note that it appears that I’ve lost DC, because my count adds up to 535 everywhere and not 536. So, add one to all the Democrats.
In every case, my results mirrors the currently accepted electoral college result. I think that such a proposal limits the effectiveness of campaigning in highly populated areas and would force a candidate to campaign across country. Why? Look at Chicago. Unless you pick up every district in the Chicago area, you’re only going to gain a few EV’s. Your opponent is going to pick up some. Right now you could campaign in Chicago and hope to pick up all of Illinois.
30 seconds more research yields the fact that in every one of those elections, using my proposal gives more EV’s to the Republicans than even the current electoral college. No wonder those calling for “Electoral College Reform” never bring up my idea. Despite the fact that it is, in my opinion, the most fair proposal.
Somebody floated this idea a few years ago and it makes a fair amount of sense. Keep the electoral college system, but add several “at large” electors who are given to the winner of the popular vote. The number of at large electors would be equal to the average number of electoral votes per state, rounded to the nearest number that ensures an uneven number of electoral votes (thus preventing a tie in the electoral college). Currently with 538 electoral votes divided by 51, the number of at large electors would be 11.
“Unless you pick up every district in the Chicago area…”
Tell me about it – we haven’t had a GOP Presidential candidate actually campaign in this state since Reagan’s time.
Another point in the favor of my proposal. Look at the EV difference for 2000. No waiting for 5 weeks to find out if Al’s going to concede. Even if all of FL is recounted, and every single district goes to Al (nearly a statistcal impossiblity), he can’t pick up enough EV’s to catch GW. With this proposal, we almost certainly know by bedtime on election night who our president’s going to be. At least bedtime on the west coast anyway.
Ok, I’ll shut up now, since I’m the only one interested in continuing this conversation, and I’m more than finished beating my dead horse.
Hey, I was interested – I just didn’t have anything to add!…
Thanks, Mark. That came out sounding much snarkier than I meant it.
Sorry for that.
Hey, if you can’t be snarky on a blog, what are blogs good for?