The Electoral College is awesome. No, seriously. I like it, even if it’s a bit quaint. How do you feel about it?
I started thinking about it today as I entered Starbucks to claim my free coffee (which is NOT an incentive to vote), I overheard rather self-assured student at an obscenely wealthy local private school (he had his logoed sweater on and everything) discuss how his vote doesn’t matter because of the Electoral College since it’s not really a vote for the President.
He’s right, we don’t vote for the President directly. As my ballot this morning said, we choose a group of electors who then cast votes on our behalf. Perhaps it’s an anachronism. It’s certainly a potential barrier against popular majorities instituted, in part, because of a skepticism of the people.
The main argument against it of course is that the President remains the only office for which we vote that is not directly elected. Instead, the process we use allows a President to get a minority (or a plurality) of the popular vote and still win so long as he pieces together wins in the right states. To me, though, the Electoral College offers several important structural protections that I think make an individual’s vote more important. (If you’re looking for something to get your brain working this morning after a 6:00 a.m. trip to the polls, this debate is a good starting point even if the anti-EC guy won.)
I’ve heard a number of good arguments in support of the Electoral College. But there are three that strike me as the most central. Undercut these and the EC has little reason for continuing.
First, the Electoral College gives each vote more relative influence in that you are participating in a smaller pool of voters (your state) rather than with everyone in the country.
Second, it guarantees smaller states a semblance of influence over presidential elections. A compelling argument can be made that EC or not, only a handful of states or areas really matter in a given election. I contend simply that without an EC more populated areas become more important overall because of the efficiencies you gain by campaigning in more densely populated areas.
Third, it isolates voting irregularities. Today we talk about voting irregularities by state or precinct instead of nationwide because states are directly responsible for the elections and ensuring that their electors are properly chosen. In a national voter pool you can’t confine such irregularities and if a recount is called, it’s much easier to do it in individual states than nationwide.
No related posts.
“The present rule of voting for President…is so great a departure from the Republican principle of numerical equality…and is so pregnant also with a mischievous tendency in practice, that an amendment of the Constitution on this point is justly called for by all its considerate and best friends.”
James Madison to George Hay. 1823. Writings 9:147–55
I’ll take this opportunity to offer a counterpoint to the Sherpa’s argument; The Electoral College was, is, and evermore shall be one of worst phenomena our Constitution has foisted upon our Republic.
First, the argument that voting for a slate of Electors provides a greater influence over the process is rubbish, if for no other reason that the Electors may be faithless. My vote therefore is no guarantee that the candidate I selected will receive a vote in the electoral college. Rather, I am registering a belief in the notion that the criminal penalties in my state are such that they will force the elector will comport with his or her pledge.
Second, what you see as a guarantee of smaller state involvement, I see as a tyranny of the minority. New York has 31 electoral votes representing 5.7% of the Electoral College. The state has roughly 19 million people by the last census, or 6.7% of the U.S. population. Montana has 3 votes in the Electoral College representing ½ or 1% of the Electoral College. Their population is only 1/3 of 1% percent of the entire U.S. population. This means that the vote of someone from New York is only worth 85% of a single vote for President and a resident of Montana is worth 117% of a single vote? Is it reasonable to decide that one part of the population’s is worth more than another?
As to the presumed bias for urban areas in a popular vote model, I would argue that a direct appeal to the largest number of citizens is more appropriate than a continual series of appeals to a small number of voters in a fraction of precincts in a few swing states. Save for their involvement is determining Florida’s electoral votes, do the residents of the communities along I-4 in Florida merit more attention than the entire State of Maryland or Utah?
Lastly, as the 2000 Election proved, the ability to perform recounts in a smaller area is no guarantee of an orderly or complete process. I would argue that given the number of inside players that pervade almost all State politics, the system actually increases the chance of manipulation. By virtue of the numbers, the effect of voter fraud is necessarily diluted as a function of a inserting them into a larger pool.
Taking your points in inverse order…
Sure, voter fraud MAY be more diluted. It may also be more pervasive if enforcement is done on the federal level. Your point is well-taken; it simply cuts both ways. I believe that placing accountability closer to the people tends to work better – or at least has a better chance of working more effectively – than entrusting all to a federal agency.
One problem that I hope we can both concede is that limited resources and voting patterns will mean that any candidate – regardless of the mechanism for counting votes – will spend time primarily in areas where they can gain votes. So it could be the case that EC or not the candidates spend time in the same exact precincts that they currently frequent. My issue with eliminating the EC is that it will, as your argument all but explicitly states, most incentives to campaigning in rural states.
The EC is not perfect. But it is a way of ensuring that sparsely populated areas are not ignored. Yes it places a value, of sorts, on each voter that is roughly equivalent to the ratio of population to electoral votes. However by doing so it requires candidates to make appeals not just to the largest number of voters but to a broad cross section of the electorate. I’ll certainly accept slightly less relative EC influence for bigger states to ensure that smaller states are not overwhelmed by large state influence.
Faithless electors are hardly the norm (though not uncommon). The point still remains that by participating in a smaller pool of voters you have greater influence over the outcome.
And Madison is hardly the champion of direct election of federal representatives given his rather forceful defense of the process for electing Senators in The Federalist Papers.
Well, since it seems that no one else is interested in our little colloquy here, I’ll a few more observations and move on…
First, it is interesting how the Electoral College interprets/magnifies/minimizes/distorts the popular vote in an election like yesterday’s. You would think that Obama had won by more than ~7 million votes given the huge electoral college margin.
Second, on the idea of appealing beyond population centers it occurs to me that I should explicitly state that rural interests are different than urban, suburban and exurban interests. These interests have an influence – albeit indirect by virtue of nature of the EC – on elections because of the electoral college. I think there’s a value in ensuring influence for these regions.
I like the electoral college, for all of the reasons Sherpa cited, if not simply for the fact that Dr. B doesn’t like it.
Then again, I also think we should go back to the original design and let the state legislatures choose Senators, too.