The Electoral College

[Cerek]

A friend sent this article through email before the election. Since this issue is bound to come up again after the final votes are tallied this year, I felt it was worth posting this article that explains how the Electoral College works and how it keeps the election process from being dominated by a few large states. It gives a good argument to support the idea that Electoral College actually provides a fairer representation for ALL states in choosing the President of the United States.

Opinions and comments are always welcome, of course.

by Sam Torode

Before this year’s presidential election, most Americans were unaware of the importance of the Electoral College. Unless you're a poly sci major, you likely assumed that the president was elected by a majority vote of the people, and that Electoral College lost the Rose Bowl in 1956.
All that changed on election night, November 7. Early on, it looked as though Vice President Gore would win the electoral vote while losing the popular vote. When questioned about this possibility, Gore said the Constitution — which provides for the appointment of the president by electors from each state, not a popular vote — must be respected. A president-elect who did not win the popular vote, Gore contended, should not have his governance called into question.

Gore, I suspect, now regrets that answer. As I write, the election is still too close to call; but if the Florida recount confirms the original numbers, the reverse will come to pass: George W. Bush will carry the Electoral College despite Al Gore’s razor-thin victory in the popular vote.

This morning, one of my fiancée’s professors told his class that, whoever is elected, the next president should move to abolish the Electoral College. America is a democracy, he reasoned, and thus the president should be chosen by nationwide popular vote, disregarding state boundaries. The Electoral College hijacks democracy, he concluded, and must be scrapped.

The Framers of our Constitution were not stupid. They created the Electoral College for a reason, and this year’s election — far from discrediting the electoral system — demonstrates its genius.

Writing to promote the freshly-drafted Constitution in 1787, Alexander Hamilton explained the Electoral College. "The people of each State," he wrote in The Federalist Number 68, "shall choose a number of persons as electors, equal to the number of senators and representatives of such State in the national government who shall assemble within the State, and vote for some fit person as President."

That the power of electing the president was given to the states, not the people as a whole, was crucial for ratifying the Constitution. In the early republic, the sovereign states were not about to cede their authority to a distant, centralized government that had only its own interests — not those of the individual states — in mind.

That’s also why we have a Senate, not just a House of Representatives. Each state’s representation in the House is determined by its population, but every state, however large or small, has two senators. The Founders intended the Senate to balance the House and protect the interests of the states. Because each state has as many members of the Electoral College as it has representatives and senators together, lower-population states are given a greater say in the electoral process than they would have in a popular vote.

In short, the Electoral College protects the interests of the states against the power of the federal government. How did this play out in Election 2000?

Looking at an electoral map, with George Bush’s states in red and Al Gore’s in blue, the bulk of the U.S. is red. According to USA Today, Bush won in 2,434 counties nationwide, while Gore prevailed in only 677. When you calculate that in terms of square miles, Bush carried 2,427,039 square miles of America, while Gore claimed only 580, 134. "Big city voters handed Gore a 71% to 25% landslide," reports USA Today’s Jill Lawrence, "while six in ten rural and small-town voters backed Bush."

For example, Gore carried Michigan with 51 percent of the popular vote. Though he did poorly in most counties — Michigan's small towns and farming country — he took the state by capturing Detroit with an overwhelming 94 percent (though some allege that number was inflated by voter fraud). In Illinois, Gore garnered 80 percent of the Chicago vote but only 54 percent of the statewide vote. He scored 80 percent in New York City (60 percent overall) and 73 percent in Los Angeles (54 percent).

If the presidential election were purely a popular vote, with no regard for individual states, it would be dominated by a handful of big cities. As seen above, states like Michigan and Illinois can be swayed by a single metropolitan area. Candidates in those states must bend to the interests of the cities in order to win.

With no Electoral College, presidential candidates would simply jet back and forth between the coasts, with the occasional stop in a large Midwestern city. With no Electoral College, candidates would have little choice but to bypass rural voters. Moreover, with no Electoral College, any other strategy would be politically foolish.

What's the difference between country folk and city folk, anyhow? Why should it matter that the cities sway elections, so long as democracy prevails? While it is certainly not possible to judge someone’s character based on where they live, one’s living situation does influence one’s responsibilities and interests, and thus affects one’s vote. "Cities are by nature more liberal than suburban and rural areas" Lawrence writes in USA Today, "... because they are denser and people rely more on public services and regulation such as zoning. ‘You have a different attitude toward politics,’ [urban expert Fred Siegal] says. ‘You can do less on your own. You need more from government.’" This helps to explain why city-dwellers voted for Al Gore in droves, with an eye toward increasing the scope and power of the federal government.

Putting aside the differences between urban and rural voters, another factor in a popular vote would be the notorious corruption that taints elections in large cities, and the power of organized labor and political "machines" to manipulate the vote in population-dense areas. At the polling place next to my Chicago office, for example, a large, intimidating man (a city official, actually) in a black trench coat stood outside all day handing voters slips of paper listing the candidates (all Democrats) they should vote for. It was amazing to see the machine at work!

Clearly, a nationwide popular vote, heavily weighted towards a few densely populated urban centers, would not necessarily reflect America as a whole. Far from subverting the American people, the Electoral College is one way of ensuring that America’s rural and heartland voters — those who live on and cultivate most of the actual land in the U.S. — are not entirely ignored.

Such is the wisdom of our Constitution’s electoral system.

Here is the link for those who wish to check the source of this article ---> Abolish the Electoral College?

[Davros]

Cerek - I disagree (sorry - had to start like that for old times sake buddy)

I have a theological contention with anyone who frames their arguments with the words "The framers of our constitution were not stupid". Phrases like this are used in holy reverence to enact the immutability of the constitution, and are uttered exclusively by pundits against change as a means of shurt-cutting debate and progress.

Now I also hold the view that the framers of your constitution were not stupid. While I truly belive that first statement though, it doesn't logically follow that the best ideas and principles of the 1780's MUST be the best ideas and principles of the 2000's. It doesn't mean they are not either, but change should never be sidestepped, avoided amd excused simply on the basis of the reverential proclamation that "our founding fathers weren't stupid". If change is for the better then it should be pursued.

Industry runs heavily on the basis of continuous improvement. My company is always looking for better and faster ways of doing things and in manners that injure less people in the workplace. Why should the constitution not be progressive. It's not something that should be changed willy-nilly, but it not be held in perpetual awe either. It should be a living document that is updated at least once every 50 years or so.

[Azred]

It would be nice to have manadatory updates every 50 years; many things that need to be updated could be. I have toyed with the idea of how to change the election process, especially since the Electoral College isn't really needed anymore. The average American, although not as well-informed as I might like, is vastly more informed than the average American of 200 years ago. Unfortunately, having an election decided by popular vote only would see politicians fawning over big-name celebrities and entertainers to attract voters, which means that Hollywood would control Washington. That thought should scare anyone.

Were the election process to be redesigned by me, all candidates would be forbidden from advertising in any media or accepting any campaign contributions in lieu of being given equal time via public access channels. Further, each candidate would have to submit written essays on a list of issues such as Social Security, foreign policy, etc. and said essays would be written by the candidates themselves with no help from anyone. Finally, everyone votes based on those essays and public debates.

I'm not idealistic, am I? [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[John D Harris]

There could be some changes made to the Electoral College, I personaly like the way Maine does it, the winner of the popular vote gets the 2 EC votes from the State representing the State's Senators, the EC votes representing the State's House members are given to the Candidate that wins that Congressional district. But looking at the map of the counties that Voted for Who or whom. President Bush would have won in an Electoral College landslide.

[ 11-04-2004, 12:52 PM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

[Timber Loftis]

http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf

A bit on the history of the EC, which has changed quite a bit over time.

Great link TL, and it explains the whole mess quite well!

[Magness]

Originally posted by John D Harris: There could be some changes made to the Electoral College, I personaly like the way Maine does it, the winner of the popular vote gets the 2 EC votes from the State representing the State's Senators, the EC votes representing the State's House members are given to the Candidate that wins that Congressional district. But looking at the map of the counties that Voted for Who or whom. President Bush would have won in an Electoral College landslide.

Hi guys, long time, no visit.

JD, you cannot assume that Bush would have had an electoral landslide under the "Maine" (also used in Nebraska) Electoral Vote system. There's a major downside to this system.

Gerrymandering.

For those not familiar with the term, "gerrymandering" is the process of manipulating the boundaries of districts (in this case, congressional districts) for the political gain of the party controlling the process. For example, in Massachusetts, the Dems have a total hammerlock on the state legislature. As a result they draw congressional district boundaries that favor their party the most. In Mass., they do this by having about 6 of their 10 districts with portions of those districts in various Boston neighborhoods. The effect of this is to make these 6 districts even more solidly democrat than they are already. This same tactic is used in most democratically constrolled states, i.e. using urban neighborhoods to overwhelm suburban and rural voters.

OTOH, in GOP controlled states, the republicans now use a strategy that is almost the exact opposite. They concentrate urban voters into purely democrat urban districts, while leaving the suburban and rural voters in districts of their own. This strategy was first used in Georgia in the early 90's with great succcess.

If electoral votes were assigned nationwide by congressional districts, there would be even more pressure to gerrymander hosue districts to assure predetermined outcomes. Instead of looking at battleground "states", you'd end up looking at a few battleground house districts, since a large majority of house districts would have almost certain pre-determined outcomes.

Also, if people didn't like the questionable Tom Delay maneuver down in Texas last year (this year?) of redistricting Texes' house districts a 2nd time in this decade, just think what could happen with house district based electoral votes. It sounds like a total nightmare to me.

No, I do not think that this is a great idea. The advantage of winner take all is that it is based on STATES. States have completely static borders. I do not know when the last time was that a state's borders were changed. This creates a very stable system. Divvying up congressional districts is an invitation for a constant political nightmare.