« The Other Battle | Main | Veterans Day »
November 9, 2004
Keep the Electoral College
Now that another presidential election is over, it's that time again: a perennial debate over the Electoral College. Less than a week since Kerry conceded to Bush, there are posts and articles debating the issue.
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution weighed in less than one week after the election:
Because a record popular vote almost didn't count, Electoral College flunks out on fairness curve. The mini-drama that played itself out Wednesday morning over Ohio's vote was eerily reminiscent of the turmoil in Florida that greeted the nation four years ago. And while the suspense was short-lived and the results clearer in Ohio in 2004 than in Florida in 2000, it should never have happened.Because a record popular vote almost didn't count, Electoral College flunks out on fairness curveTheir argument is that while Bush beat Kerry by 2.5% in the popular vote, a swing of 1% of the vote in Ohio would have swung the election to Kerry. And he could have become president like Bush did in 2000, without a majority of the popular vote. They also make the point that most polls show that the majority of Americans would like to see the Electoral College eliminated.
The time has come — after the second election in a row where the results in one state ultimately determined the outcome of the election — for the nation to drop out of the Electoral College.
Commentary at a site dedicated to the elimination of the Electoral College expands on this "swing state" objection:
Because states matter more than people, the Electoral College encourages presidential candidates to focus on just 10-15 battleground states where the voters are somewhat equally divided in their choice of candidates. These swing states are up for grabs, so candidates spend most of their time, money, and attention there. States where voters are more like-minded either get taken for granted or written off as lost causes, neither of which does democracy any good.
Another site lists four arguments for abolishing the Electoral College, and four for keeping it. According to them, " Those who object to the Electoral College system and favor a direct popular election of the president generally do so on four grounds:"
- the possibility of electing a minority president
- the risk of so-called "faithless" Electors,
- the possible role of the Electoral College in depressing voter turnout, and
- its failure to accurately reflect the national popular will
- contributes to the cohesiveness of the country by requiring a distribution of popular support to be elected president
- enhances the status of minority interests,
- contributes to the political stability of the nation by encouraging a two-party system, and
- maintains a federal system of government and representation.
It provides small states with a disproportionately larger say in the election; this is one of the Constitutional devices intended to keep small states from being dominated by large states.Still others say that the Electoral College keeps election fraud to a minimum:
The direct election system is subject to types of fraud that are impossible under the Electoral College system. With direct elections, there would be an incentive for Nebraska to produce more Republican votes or Massachusetts more Democratic ones. Majority fraud would be hard to combat, because the majority party would also be responsible for counting the votes.The 2000 election, of course, was one in which President Bush won the Electoral College but lost the popular vote. One columnist says that this is reason to keep, not abandon, the College (though not for the partisan reasons you might think):
Gore won the popular vote by 337,576, a margin of 3/10 of 1%. Bush won the Electoral College 271-267. What gave Bush the Electoral win? Basically a combination of what happened in 1876 and 1888. Bush won 13-6 in states with 6 or less electors. Close elections favor the winner of a vast majority of small states. Remember 1876?There are many arguments pro on con, and I'm not going to attempt to summarize them all. I think I've hit on the main ones.Demographics show that Gore's campaign platform appealed primarily to the special interests of large urban populations--the Northeast, Great Lakes and Pacific Coast. Gore largely ignored most of the Rockies, Great Plains and South which was Bush's stronghold. Gore won 21 primarily urban states (including DC). Bush won widespread support in 30 states all across middle America. If Gore would have won just 1 more state he would be President & Florida wouldn't have even mattered.
Gore won the 2 most populous states, New York & California, by an overwhelming margin of 2,815,471. Narrowing that count down to just New York City and Los Angeles County, Gore won by 2,380,534. Which means that the rest of the United States, outside of those 2 metro areas, favored Bush by 2,042,958 votes. Remember 1888?
So whether you like it or not, the Electoral College did in 2000 exactly what it was designed to do. Without it the power of electing Presidents would rely primarily in a handful of the largest population centers including New York & California.
The question is: Will the benefits of abolishing the Electoral College outweigh the disadvantages and risks?
The answer, to me, is no.
One thing that opponents of the Electoral College usually fail to take into account is the law of unintended consequences. Most of them who advocate elimination seem to imagine that only the good effects that they forsee will occur. They are locked into a static analysis model.
The reality is that when you change A, things change all down the line to Z. And the changes are often unpredictable. Given that we are the worlds longest running democracy, and the most successful one at that, we should give pause before making any changes.
The major assumtion that most opponents of the Electoral College seem to make is that the current two party system would stay the same, and that the only difference in our elections is that the winner would have a "true" mandate, as they would have a majority of the popular vote. But would that be the case?
For example, the Electoral College system keeps serious third parties from becoming anything more than temporary. This, I believe, is a very good thing. Most major countries with multiple parties have had severe problems that have caused them to change their systems to one that encourages only two or three parties. France during the fourth Republic and Israel during the seventies and eighties come to mind as prime examples.
Without the Electoral College, we might see a splintering of the major parties into smaller ones, each trying to get that plurality of the popular vote. These parties may form around ideological, economic, racial, regional, or even religious grounds. The current two-party system forces everyone into one of the two parties. There would be no reason for this if the Electoral College were abandoned.
If no one got a majority of the vote, we'd then be faced with a run-off election (who want's to go through two presidential elections?), or the election of a president without an apparent mandate.
This splintering of the parties may not happen, but that is not my point. My argument is that we cannot know what will happen, and the refusal of most proponents of change to even recognize that is disturbing.
The beauty of the Electoral College is that it gives a president who may not get a majority of the popular vote a majority of the EC votes and thus an apparent mandate. Thus in 1992, Bill Clinton got only 43% of the popular vote, but 68% of the electoral votes( 370 of 538). While I was hardly pleased that he won that year, objective analysis forces me to conclude that in order for our system to work, a president must feel that they have received a mandate.
My main objection to ending he Electoral College is that if it isn't broke, don't fix it. The system is not broke, The objections to the College, while important, are not worth the risk. We have the longest running, most successful democracy in history. Yes, there are times when we need to make changes. Enfranchisement of women and blacks and direct election of Senators were worth changing the Constitution over. This is not.
Update
The Homespun Bloggers, of whom I am a proud member, are conducting a symposium on whether we should keep the Electoral College or not. Be sure to stop by and check out the discussion.
Posted by Tom at November 9, 2004 2:39 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.theredhunter.com/mt/refer.cgi/206
