The Electoral College- It’S Time To Move On Essay, Research Paper

The next President of the United States, the successor to William Jefferson Clinton and man who will lead America as the first President of the new millennium is George W. Bush, the Republican governor of Texas, the son of a former President. Or it’s Democratic Vice President Al Gore, President Clinton’s right hand man for the past eight years.

One of these gentlemen is the next leader of the free world.

Who that gentleman is will in all likelihood be determined by the Supreme Court. Which is probably not what our nation’s Founding Fathers had in mind when they designed the Presidential election process.

The 2000 Presidential Election has been nothing short of a fiasco on many levels. Historical in the sense that this has never happened in the United States before, but a fiasco, nonetheless. The popular vote shows Gore as winning the election, however, the popular vote does not determine the next tenant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. That’s the job of the Electoral College. The winner of Florida’s electoral votes, and apparently of the election was Bush. Bush had won Florida’s 25 electoral votes. However, reports of voting irregularities, problems with the “butterfly ballot” and voters allegedly being turned away from the polls, raised concerns as to who the actual winner of the crucial Florida electoral votes was. The popular vote was so close that it required a recount, effectively taking the electoral votes, the election and the Presidency away from Bush.

The 2000 Presidential Election has done nothing if not raise serious questions about our election process. Lack of standardization in the voting process, methods of vote tabulation and the media’s role in determining the outcome of an election have all come under scrutiny. The question raised most often, however, seems to be about the Electoral College, and it’s validity as part of the election process in the 21st Century.

Originally, in our nation’s infancy, the plan was to have Congress elect the President. Despite the fact that the President of the United States might feel indebted to Congress, coupled with the fact that the intricate system of checks and balances placed in the Constitution would be weakened by such a process, this system was the process of choice and received approval on four different occasions (Pierce 39).

There were those who did not agree with this method of choosing a President, and while many felt that the American Democracy was sufficiently mature enough to handle a direct vote, they also felt that the government was still shaky at best.

One of the biggest proponents of the direct vote was future President James Madison, who, despite his concerns over unfairness to the underpopulated southern states, felt that since one of the President’s jobs was to guard the people from the legislature, he should be elected by the people he is guarding. (Pierce 41). It was generally believed, however, that the people were essentially misinformed and easily confused and misled. Despite being voted down on two separate occasions, the direct vote system did demonstrate the hazards of the legislature selecting the president. (Pierce 41)

Eventually, what developed was the Electoral College.

The idea behind the Electoral College was to have “electors” that could not be a member of Congress, vote for the President. The final plan, after two were voted down, was to have the electors selected by each state’s legislatures. It was agreed that each state’s electors would be the total of the states representatives and senators.( Electoral 256). The process for electing the President of the United States had been determined.(Pierce 44).

The states used three methods for choosing electors. The first was the legislative system, in which state legislatures chose the electors, the district system whereby electors were chosen by Congressional district and the general ticket, where the winner was determined by a popular vote throughout the state, the winner of which took all the electoral votes. (Glennon 13). 48 states presently use the general election system, with two states (Maine and Nebraska) still using the district system. The system utilizes the census results to determine the number of representatives each state is allowed. This total, plus the state’s two senators, equals the number of electors each state has. Washington, D.C., although not a state, has three electors. Basically, what is supposed to happen is that a direct vote in each state determines the winner, who the receives all of that states electoral votes.

The question is- is it a system that’s still valid 200 years after its conception?

The electoral college was originally established because the designers felt that the general population was easily misinformed and misled, as well as a concern over the more populated states dominating the less populated ones. While those concerns may have been true at the time of the college’s inception, they are no longer valid today. The majority of states are smaller states, limiting the power of the larger states to force their will on the rest of the nation. With the plethora of news and information sources available today, the general population is no longer easily misinformed. Technological advances in communications have brought what was once a separated population closer together. The telephone, Internet, numerous television and radio news programs, newspapers and news magazines keep the public very well informed. The population is no longer as isolated as it was back when the college was developed. The people are better educated, better informed and perhaps not as willing to accept what they are told as readily as they were 200 years ago. Watergate and the more recent Clinton scandal have made the American citizen a bit more jaded and suspicious of politicians. A better informed public makes the need for an electoral college questionable, at best.

According to a New York Times article by Akhil Reed Amar, a direct election of the President would give state governments an incentive to encourage voter participation, the reasoning being that the more voters a state has, the more important its role in the election process. Amar maintains that this would force candidates to pay closer attention to the states with the highest turnouts. The way the system is presently, candidates focus their attention on those states carrying the most electoral votes, all but ignoring the other states. David Stout, New York Times columnist, argues that the Electoral College, in fact, benefits the smaller states, giving them a certain amout of power in relation to their population. Stout maintains that if the Electoral College were to be eliminated, candidates could conceivably choose to ignore the smaller states, and those areas of larger states with small populations in favor of those with greater populations. This is, however, the way things appear to be done now. Candidates may make token appearences in smaller or sparsly populated states, but they concentrate on the places with the most to offer by way of electoral votes. The rational might change, but the action would be the same. Candidates would concentrate their campaign efforts on the places where they have the most to gain. Period. They always have and they always will.

While it would require a Constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College, perhaps it is time to do just that. The Founding Fathers of the United States created our Constitution to be a flexible document, with the idea that it should be able to adapt to meet changing circumstances and times. They created the college to protect a still shaky government and nation. The United States and its people have proven that they are no longer in need of such protection.

It’s time to give the election of the President of the United States back to the people.

Electoral College. Congressional Digest Oct 1992: 226,256.

Glennon, Michael J. When No Majority Rules. Washington: Congressional Quarterly mc, 1992.

Peirce, Neal R. The Peoples President. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1968.

The Electoral College, Unfair from Day One- Akhil Reed Amar, New York Times, November 9, 2000

How to make the President talk to the Local Pol, Charles Fried, New Yoork Times, November 11, 2000

How the Winner of the Popular Vote Could Lose the Election After All, David Stout, New York Times,

November 3, 2000

Time For Reform? Considering The Failures of The Electoral College

Description: This paper discusses the many shortcomings of the Electoral College,

and posits possible alternative electoral processes which likely be more

democratic.

Time for Reform? Considering the failures of the Electoral College

A common misconception among American is that when they vote they elect the

President. The truth is not nearly this simple. What in fact happens when a

person votes is that there vote goes for an Elector. This Elector (who is

selected by the respective state in which a vote is cast) casts ballots for two

individuals, the President and the Vice-President. Each state has the same

number of electors as there are Senate and House of Representative members for

that State. When the voting has stopped the candidate who receives the majority

of the Electoral votes for a state receives all the electoral votes for that

state. All the votes are transmitted to Washington, D.C. for tallying, and the

candidate with the majority of the electoral votes wins the presidency. If no

candidate receives a majority of the vote, the responsibility of selecting the

next President falls upon the House of Representatives. This elaborate system of

Presidential selection is thought by many to be an 18th century anachronism

(Hoxie p. 717), what it is in fact is the product of a 200 year old debate over

who should select the President and why.

In 1787, the Framers in their infinite wisdom, saw the need to respect the

principles of both Federalists and States Righters (republicans) (Hoxie p. 717).

Summarily a compromise was struck between those who felt Congress should select

the President and those who felt the states should have a say. In 1788 the

Electoral College was indoctrinated and placed into operation. The College was

to allow people a say in who lead them, but was also to protect against the

general public’s ignorance of politics. Why the fear of the peoples ignorance of

politics? It was argued that the people, left to their own devices could be

swayed by a few designing men to elect a king or demagogue (McManus p. 19). With

the Electoral College in place the people could make a screened decision about

who the highest authority in the land was to be (Bailey & Shafritz (p. 60); at

the same time the fear of the newly formed nation being destroyed by a demagogue

could be put to rest because wiser men had the final say.

200 years later the system is still designed to safeguard against the ignorant

capacities of the people. The Electoral College has remained relatively

unchanged in form and function since 1787, the year of its formulation. This in

itself poses a problem because in 200 years the stakes have changed yet the

College has remained the same. A safeguard against a demagogue may still be

relevant, but the College as this safeguard has proved flawed in other

capacities. These flaws have shed light on the many paths to undemocratic

election. The question then is what shall the priorities be? Shall the flaws be

addressed or are they acceptable foibles of a system that has effectively

prevented the rise of a king for 200 years? To answer this question we must

first consider a number of events past and possible that have or could have

occurred as a result of the flaws Electoral College.

The Unfaithful Elector

Under the current processes of the Electoral College, when a member of the

general electorate casts a vote for a candidate he is in fact casting a vote for

an Electoral College member who is an elector for that candidate. Bound only by

tradition this College member is expected to remain faithful to the candidate he

has initially agreed to elect. This has not always happened. In past instances

Electoral College member have proved to be unfaithful. This unfaithful elector

ignores the will of the general electorate and instead selects candidate other

than the one he was expected to elect (McGaughey, p. 81). This unfaithfulness

summarily subjugates all the votes for a candidate in a particular district. In

all fairness it is important to note that instances of unfaithful electors are

few and far between, and in fact 26 states have laws preventing against

unfaithful electors (McGauhey, p.81). Despite this the fact remains that the

possibility of an unfaithful elector does exist and it exists because the system

is designed to circumvent around direct popular election of the President.

The Numbers Flaw

The unfaithful elector is an example of how the popular will can be purposely

ignored. The Numbers Flaw reveals how the will of the people can be passed over

unintentionally due to flaw of design (McNown, Lecture Notes, 2/20/93).

(a)6/b(4) | (a)6/b(6) Candidate a: 18

| Candidate b: 22

————-|————

| Electoral Votes

(a)6/b(4) | (a)0/b(10) Candidate a: 3

| Candidate b: 1

In this theoretical example candidate (a) receives a minority of the popular

votes with 18, but a majority of the electoral votes with three. Candidate (b)

receives a majority of the popular votes with 22, but receives only one

electoral vote. Under the winner-take-all system, the candidate with the

majority of the electoral votes not only wins the state but also receives all

the electoral votes for that state. In this hypothetical situation candidate (a)

receiving a minority of the popular votes wins the state and takes all the

electoral votes. The acceptability of this denial of the popular will,

unintentional or otherwise, is questionable to say the least.

Tie Game

The problem posed by no one person receiving a majority of the electoral votes

(a tie) first came to head in the 1800 elections. The success of political

parties served to turn Electoral College members into agents of the parties

Bailey & Shafritz p. 61). This so galvanized the 1800 elections that the

Republican electors cast their two votes for the two Republican candidates,

Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr respectively. It was assumed that Jefferson

would be President and Burr the Vice-President. Unfortunately their was no

constitutional doctrine to affirm this assumption. As a result the ever

audacious Aaron Burr challenged Jefferson election as President and the issue

had to be sent to the House for resolution (Bailey & Shafritz, p. 61). Any

debating on the issue was only incidental; when all was said and done the issue

was decided by one man, Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton, and the Federalists were

in control of the House when the decision was to be made. Hamilton, who

disagreed with Jefferson but overwhelmingly distrusted Burr, orchestrated a

blank ballot initiative among the Federalists which allowed the Republicans to

select Jefferson as President (Bailey & Shafritz, p. 61). Though this entire

incident was significant the most noteworthy aspect was the fact that the

President was essentially chosen by one man. The final decision was taken

entirely out of the hands of the people and was left to the mercy of the biases

of a single individual. In all fairness it should be noted that the 12th

amendment was formulated out of the Jefferson-Burr to forever lay to rest the

question of who is President and Vice-President in a tie. The 12th amendment

stipulates that electors are to cast separate votes for the President and Vice

President, and summarily an event such as the Jefferson-Burr incident cannot

happen again. (Bailey & Shafritz p. 61). In effect the 12th prevents the issue

of a tie from going to the House under a very narrow scope of conditions. This

is far less of a solution than one which would have prevented this issue from

going to the House at all because when the issue of who would be President went

to the House in 1800, the issue of democracy was left to compromise. This all

serves to reveal yet another flaw of the Electoral College process.

Congressional selection of the President can lead to democratic compromise. This

would seem an area of concern. Though some would argue we have had 200 years to

distance ourselves from such maladies as the elections of 1800, the following

reveals how close to home the flaws 200 year old institution can hit.

The Wallace Debacle

In 1968 a three-way tie nearly brought to head the same undemocratic modes of

presidential selections that emerged 200 years earlier with the Jefferson-Burr

incident. The 1968 elections race was extremely close. Richard Nixon barley

received a majority of the electoral votes to win the presidency. Had Nixon

failed to get a majority a number of bizarre scenarios might have emerged. The

candidates in the race were Richard Nixon, Hubert Humphrey and George Wallace

respectively. Had Nixon failed to win a majority Wallace would have been in a

position to control who the next President would be (Bailey & Shafritz p. 65).

Though he could not have won himself Wallace could have used his votes as swing

votes to give Nixon a majority, or give Humphrey enough to prevent Nixon from

getting a majority (Bailey & Shafritz p. 65). In the latter instance the issue

would have, as in 1800, been sent to the House for rectification. In either

instance Wallace would have had a great deal to gain, and the temptation to

wheel and deal (at the compromise of democracy) would have been great indeed. It

is possible Wallace could have used his influence with Southern House members to

get Humphrey elected. In the process he would have likely `garnered great

political clout for himself. Wallace could have bargained with Nixon for an

administration position in Nixon’s cabinet in return for Wallace’s electoral

votes. The possible scenarios are endless, and for the most part irrelevant.

What is relevant is that the processes of the Electoral College again paved a

path for democratic compromise, just as it did in 1800. If time is the mechanism

for change then apparently not enough time has passed.

Conclusion

The shortcomings of the Electoral College presented above are only a few of many

flaws. Others flaws include the bias toward small and large states, which gives

these states a disproportionate advantage; The bias toward those who live in

urban areas and therefore enjoy a stronger vote than those living in sparsely

populated areas (Bailey & Shafritz p. 63). The list of flaws is extensive. The

question that still remains is whether or not the flaws are extensive enough to

warrant change? The Electoral College has successfully provided the U.S. with

its Presidents for 200 years and has done so without allowing the ascension of a

demagogue. But in the process of 200 years of electing the College has allowed

the will of the people to be compromised. Granted at the time of the 1800

elections the College was young and its shortcomings were not entirely clear.

200 years later the flaws have revealed themselves or have been revealed in

various fashion. The question remains then are flaws acceptable considering the

duty the College performs? If the purpose of the College is to provide democracy

but prevent demagoguery then its success seems uncertain. The U.S. has seen no

demagogue but has seen compromise of democracy. The evidence shows that the

flaws of the Electoral College are responsible for democratic compromise. It

would seem then that the flaws of the college are self-defeating to the purpose

of the college. If this is then it is definitely time for reform.

Bibliography

1 Bailey, Harry A. Jr., Shafritz, Jay M. The American Presidency, (California:

Brooks/Cole Publishing Co., 1988) Chapter III

2 McGauhey, Elizabeth P., “Democracy at Risk,” Policy Review, Winter 1993: 79-81

3 R. Gordon Hoxie, “Alexander Hamilton and the Electoral System Revisited,”

Presidential Studies Quarterly, v. 18 n. 4 p. 717-720

4 John F. McManus, “Let the Constitution Work,” The New American, v. 8 n. 14 p.

19

5 William P. Hoar, “The Electoral College: How The Republic Chooses its

President,” New Ame