Throughout history, there has been a need for governance. And in that need there have always been problems. The people are unruly, and the leaders are all big rich guys who hate the common man and only want to exploit them. But in 1787, a document of governance was written in Philadelphia, intended to bring a level of understanding and basic equality to the citizens and leaders of the 13 colonies. This document forged the United States, and it has lasted longer than any other modern document of governance. It features a fancy set of checks and balances, which are meant to make sure no part of the government ever becomes too big or powerful to deal with. Of these checks and balances, the Electoral College is the most obvious one that was meant to take power out of the hands of the citizens. It’s also the most controversial, and is the subject of this essay. I started with a basic research question. Is the Electoral College an unnecessary component of the presidential elective process? I did my research, including looking at the numbers from the last handful of elections, and came to a decision. No, the Electoral College is not unnecessary. Its job is to prevent someone from rising to power the way Hitler did in the centuries following the Constitutions creation. More than anything, it allows for a basic level of regional organization that simplifies the elective process.
There have been 56 elections in United States history, and 44 presidents. Among those, there are only three examples that come to mind where it feels like the current electoral system has failed us. This was in 2000, 1968, and 1876. These elections are famous because in 2000 the winner lost the popular vote, in 1968 the winner won the Electoral College by a land slide but barely won the popular vote, and in 1876 the election was won by a single Electoral College vote by extremely controversial means. While one could point to these three elections and say that the system is broken, that person would ne forgetting that 53 other presidential elections went off with out a hitch. We might complain because, when one gets messed up, it gets messed up bad. But outside of some frustrations with the system it works, and has worked since the very first presidential election in 1789.
It has been two hundred and twenty five years since the constitution was written and ratified. In that time, the number of changes to the document has been incredibly minimal. Comparatively, some countries like Germany, France, and Russia have switched governmental systems as many as three times. This kind of stability is not an accident. It is intentional. The founding fathers, as the original members of the Philadelphia Convention are known, wanted to create a system which would be able to bend to the shape of modern times, but not so much that its entire image was changed. This was done to add a rock for the people to lean against. While the men of America ventured west into the great unknown, the government would always be there to back them up with law and order. They made laws hard to change and amendments hard to pass in order to achieve this. This has had some negative repercussions on the issues of slavery and civil rights, but for the most part it has been beneficial to our country. My point is that, based on the number of successful elections that we have had, it would be quite the difficult task to pass a constitutional amendment and change the system. We have a working system that has been stable and successful for many years. Why would we decide to mess with that now?
Now, I will say that there are some huge benefits that could be had by changing from the Electoral College to a direct popular vote system. The first is that the majority of Americans already support the idea. According to a Gallup poll conducted in 2004, sixty one percent of Americans want to change the system to a direct popular vote using a constitutional amendment. It would also significantly simplify the system, since studies show that the majority of Americans do not understand the Electoral College system. So, it is not as if there are not advantages to changing the system.
But these reasons are part of why we have an Electoral College in the first place. The people have their say in these kinds of things by electing representatives, who set out to do their best to do what’s right for the people. We aren’t a Democracy, we are a Republic, and by that basis abolishing the Electoral College would damage the basic premises of Federalism. The idea of Federalism is to ensure that the government never gets too overbearing or powerful. By this, changing from a the current system to a national popular vote damages the way we have broken up the system. It would make recounts nearly impossible, since we would be counting one hundred million votes rather than a couple of thousand from each congressional district. It would also mark a massive change towards centralist government, where the divisions of States and Districts would be nearly meaningless.
Another problem is that it could precipitate the idea of “mobocracy”, so feared by the members of early American government. The thought was that, without proper forms of representation, the uneducated masses would be able to elect people who completely supported their own ideals. They had a good point, since its been forgotten in modern times that most Northerners did not like Lincoln, that he barely won the election of 1864, and that many did not care either way on the issue of slavery. In our times, these things seem ridiculous and stupid. Illogical ideas that can only be viewed as “another time”. But its not necessarily that hard to believe in modern times. There are those who believe we should abandon safety laws and food quality regulations. If that were to become the popular idea, would you want the government to listen to these people? Or would you trust that our Representatives are smart enough to figure that one out?
This kind of rule is not as outlandish as it might seem, either. Do not forget that most of the men reviled in history were elected by popular votes, some of which were very close. Indeed, Hitler gained power through a lesser office in the German government that he gained because of the Centralist government system Germany. While throwing his name out there is often a cop out by people, it should always be considered when one talks about the idea of “mobocracy”. With a Federalist system, he probably would not have been elected to office in the first place. The votes simply weren’t there for him to win a plurality. Which leads me to my next point.
Many have brought up the winner take all system as an example of the Electoral College’s failings. It’s what allowed for George W. Bush to be elected in a year where he lost the popular vote. But the government believes in a system of plurality. How many people voted for the candidate is not as important as who wins the election in our system. All other elections run in this country are run on the basis of winner take all. So it seems logical that we should continue on this course. However, I feel like this is where we should improve the system. The winner takes all system is an inaccurate reading of the opinions held by the voters. It’s a big part of why many feel like their votes “don’t count”. However, abolishing the Electoral College for a popular vote would make it nearly impossible to properly manage, and would take out the conscious safety check of a faithless elector.
What we should do is make a national move towards proportional representation. Proportional Representation would allow for congressional districts to maintain their own basic level of organization, and would allow for a more accurate version of what the Electoral College does, which is make sure that the people of the United States do not elect a President with extremely radical or reactionary views to office. The intrinsic safety mechanism provided by the College would still be there, and it would maintain that specific population’s votes within the country would be properly represented during presidential elections.
One of the problems to solve within this idea is what to do with the two votes that are left over by the electoral system. Well, these two votes would be allocated based on that State’s overall voting. So, a state that voted majority Republican would give all of the votes won district by district to the Republican candidate, along with two extra votes that the candidate would receive for holding a majority in that state. This seems like an insignificant idea, but it would have a huge effect in California. Say, if we had used this system in 2008, Obama would have received thirty four votes, plus two for a total of thirty six. On the other side, McCain would have received 21 votes in total from the state. Other states this would have a huge impact on would be Florida, Ohio, Texas, Michigan, Alabama, and North Carolina. These are all states where the vote is either already in contention one way or the other, or areas where because of demographics many people are not properly represented in the presidential elections. I have a difficult time believing that the majority of African American voters in South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana voted for John McCain, or that the Hispanic voters in Arizona and Texas did this as well.
In conclusion, I believe that the Electoral College is pivotal to maintaining balance in Presidential politics in the United States. It prevents the election of candidates based strictly on their popularity with the masses, and allows for a more defined political stratum for the American people to focus on. It has been part of the rock that our government has become, providing an important check on who becomes President and who is given consideration as being a legitimate candidate. Its built in safety net against dangerous candidates makes sure that the Presidential office will always be the most middle leaning office in the American Government. But, while it provides all of these great features that protect our country, it has room to be improved. It is not perfect. Nothing in this world will ever be perfect. But it is our way, and our form of election. Not chosen by the people, but chosen for the people by those who created this great nation we all inhabit.
