Electoral College: compare and contrast - Essay Example

Electoral College: compare and contrast Tom Smrcina POLS 1101 – American Government Monday and Wednesday 7:30 p.m. 3527100000076237 IDApril 12, 2006 Introduction In U.S. presidential elections, close races occasionally occur. The Electoral College is a mechanism, by which ties are nearly impossible. If a tie should happen, the nation would have found itself in a predicament and heated controversy. This appears to be a complex solution to a simple problem, a redundancy to a simple popular vote, a ‘one person, one vote’ approach. Voters often question not only what the Electoral College is but also why it is. It seems to exist simply to amplify the margin of victory in the popular vote and is exclusively employed in presidential elections. Advocates of election reform wish to either do away with the Electoral College system completely and replace it with the direct popular vote or repair perceived defects in the existing system by implementing one of several Electoral College reform proposals. Following several close elections in 1960, 1968, 1976 and 2000, the House of Representatives bowed to public sentiment and proposed constitutional amendments providing for direct election but never received the required the two-thirds majority approval necessary to then submit it for states passage. This discussion will first review the history of this exclusively American tradition in an attempt to illuminate the rationale behind it. It will then address the perceived advantages and disadvantages of the system. It will then provide alternatives and the rational for and against each to examine how likely it would be for these reforms to materialize into a Constitutional amendment. History Members of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 faced the difficult question of how to elect a president. They were severely at odds with each other over the question of presidential selection and anguished over the concept of creating a workable system. The Electoral College system that emerged during the very last week of the Convention did seem to satisfy all the diverse factions (Katz, n.d.). The intent of this system was that the selection of a president be based solely on merit and without regard to state of origin or political party by that state’s most informed and educated individuals. Each state has a number of electors equal to the number U.S. Representatives plus its (2) U.S. Senators. These electors then vote for President. The method of choosing the electors was remanded to the individual state legislatures thereby calming those states already distrustful of a centralized government. This understanding built upon an earlier compromise in the design of the congress itself and thus satisfied both large and small states. The nation of thirteen states wanted to retain their own governmental powers and the prevalent thought of the time was that political parties were detrimental to liberty. These founders were of the opinion that men should not campaign for public office. ‘The office should seek the man. The man should not seek the office.’ In 1787, the country’s population was distributed along a thousand miles of Atlantic coastline that was hardly, if at all, connected by reliable communication or transportation. “How, then, to choose a president without political parties and national campaigns without upsetting the carefully designed balance between the presidency and the Congress on one hand and states and the federal government on the other?” (Kimberling, n.d.). Elector’s votes were counted by the states legislative districts, the method favored by many of the Founders. As a result of this method, a state’s electoral votes were divided among two or more presidential candidates. Though most of the framers of the constitution would have objected, political parties began to rise to power during the 1830’s. Because of this, states began to use winner-take-all elections to choose presidential electors. In this system, the party that won a majority of the state is awarded all of that state’s electors. Political parties were of no consequence in the first presidential election of 1788. George Washington won the electoral vote unanimously, a reflection of his immense popularity. In the race for the second presidency, John Adams defeated Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson and his allies worked to organize the electorate and Jefferson was elected President four years later. Since then, political parties have affected the Electoral College in at least three ways. “First, it gave rise to the winner-take-all system for electing the electors. Second, because the electors were pledged to support a particular candidate or party, they served merely to reflect the popular sentiment of their state’s electorate, and exercised no discretion in deciding how to cast their votes. Finally, the party system, coupled with the two-party nature of American presidential competition, has made the possibility of election by the House of Representatives unlikely” (Katz, n.d.). Today, all states except Maine, Colorado and Nebraska use at-large, or the winner-take-all system. As the presidency became a more democratic institution instead of following the concepts of federalism, debate regarding the presidential selection process emerged. This is a debate that continues to this day. Pros States that have a small population contend that if the electoral system were eradicated, presidential candidates would have no reason to campaign there or to advertise. “Why visit a small state with a media market that reaches, say, 100,000 people, when a visit to a large state can put the candidate in touch with millions?” (Gregg, 2001). The McConnell Center for Political Leadership at the University of Louisville studied the rationale behind the public’s perception that a direct, one-person-one-vote system would be more equitable than the electoral system. The findings debunked popular perceptions that abolishing the current system of presidential elections would improve the process. Popular opinion is that if the 2000 election had been based on a national popular vote, the Florida debacle of hanging chads and dimpled ballots would not happened. In reality, the Electoral College saved the nation from a much worse problem. Imagine the distress of the nation in such a close election if a simple plurality of the national vote determined the outcome of the election. “With just a few hundred thousand votes separating the candidates, every vote in every precinct, in every state would have been worthy of a recount and every recount in every county subject to suit and countersuit” (Gregg, 2001). We still might not know who won. Opponents of the Electoral College argue for a direct national election, that it would more represent the diversity of the nation. In the 2000 election, Al Gore acquired half a million more votes than George W. Bush. It would appear that Gore was able to appeal to a broader spectrum of voters than Bush. But Gores support came from heavily inhabited municipal areas. A map of the county-by-county results of the United States following the 2000 vote showed only small areas of Democrat Blue among a wide expanse of Republican Red. “Bush won majorities in areas representing more than 2.4 million square miles while Gore was able garner winning margins in only 580,000. Vice President Gore could fly from Pittsburgh to Los Angeles without flying over a county he was able to win” (Gregg, 2001). This provides proof that if not for the Electoral College presidential candidates would only campaign in heavily populated areas. They would have little incentive to bother with rural areas. The Electoral College was intended and does in fact insure a more diverse representation than would a direct, popular vote. Many will say that there is a national popular vote and Al Gore won the election. Fundamentally, the debate of the popular versus the Electoral College vote is meaningless. States are given the power by the Constitution to choose electors. Today, every state assigns electoral votes in proportion to a popular election. This has given a perception that the election process was designed to employ both methods but has no basis in law. The existence of the Electoral College affects the way political parties organize their campaigns. If the 2000 election had been based on a simple national popular vote, both the Gore and Bush campaigns would have made fundamental strategic changes that could have changed the outcome of the race. “Bush would like to have hunkered down in Texas to eek out every last vote while Gore would have spent most of his time traveling the coast of California and the inner city of New York to wrest every possible vote he could from his core constituencies. States like West Virginia and New Mexico would have largely been ignored in favor of the big media markets” (Gregg, 2001). The Electoral College has strengthened our national community as it requires a broad national coalition to win. It has contributed to the establishment of the two-party system and acts to balance the more extreme elements of political ideologies. In close, controversial elections as in 2000, the presence of the Electoral College helped to resolve what could have become a national crisis. By exaggerating the size of a presidential win it adds legitimacy to the office and its holder. “Those who would change that system have a burden to carry in explaining how the abolition of the Electoral College would give us better presidents. Until they can do that, the movement to abolish the Electoral College should remain what it has been, a nice bumper sticker for activists, but not a serious public-policy proposition for America” (Gregg, 2001). Cons Voting apathy levels in this country is partly to blame on the Electoral College. Many states are predestined red or blue so there is little incentive to wait in line at the polling booth. If it makes sense in a democracy to elect all offices ranging from dog catcher to U.S. Senator by popular vote, then it makes sense for the highest office. One person, one vote; it’s a simple concept blurred by the antiquated and patently unfair Electoral College process. There would be no red or blue states to divide people along regional lines. The system can undermine legitimacy when the electoral vote differs from a popular vote outcome. The concept that a presidential candidate has to collect the highest number of votes in a certain combination of states to win is absurd.  “The perverse incentives created by this method are painfully obvious from the 2000 campaign. Most states already are effectively ignored by the candidates and groups seeking to mobilize voters because in a competitive national race, most states are dominated by one party or the other” (Richie & Hill, 2004). The campaign rhetoric is carefully constructed only towards undecided swing voters in key battleground states. “The Electoral Colleges democratic deficit is compounded by the use of plurality election, the candidate with the most votes wins 100 percent of the electoral votes from that state, even if less than a majority. Plurality elections mean that a popular majority can be fractured by the presence of a third party candidate. Far more than any ballot corruption in Florida, Al Gore was hurt by the nearly hundred thousand voters in Florida who supported Ralph Nader” (Richie & Hill, 2004). A system of direct elections would inherently create incentives for a candidate to campaign in small states. They would receive some electoral reward for their effort, since even if a state were lost; the votes gained there would still count in a popular vote system. Even more importantly, “the financial calculus of election campaigns in a direct-election system might help level the playing field between large and small states. Large states have more voters to be sure, but reaching these voters is very expensive propositions since advertising rates are often astronomical. On the other hand, small states tend to have less-expensive media markets. Thus, campaigns might find that for every dollar spent in a large-state media market, an equal number of voters might be reached for the same or lesser amount of money in a small state” (Klinkner & McClellan, 2000). Direct Election Plan Under this plan, each voter would be eligible to directly cast a vote for the president; one person, one vote. The Electoral College would be eliminated. One Direct Election plan would require a majority vote for president with a national run-off, if necessary, between the top two candidates. Others have recommended establishing a minimum percentage (40 or 45 percent) for election. Critics of this plan make the case that campaigns would become much more expensive because all votes in each state are equal and candidates would feel the need to campaign in every state. “Indeed, one has only to look to history or comparative governments to see how easily such a system could disintegrate into multi-candidate races, which would, in turn, devolve into a system of regular runoffs or fractious coalition governments” (Ross, 2004). National Bonus Plan This plan calls for amending the Electoral College to retain the advantage it gives to the two-party system while enhancing the power of the people. The popular winner of each state would be given an extra two electoral votes, resulting in a total of 102 electoral votes (including an extra two votes for the District of Columbia). “This plan would presumably preserve the power of the states to function as organic units, while dispensing with the most undemocratic feature of the Electoral College, the tremendous weight given to small states” (Schlesinger, 1973). This ‘weighted’ Electoral College system would seemingly preserve conventional federalism while at the same time maintaining an enhanced parallel between the Electoral College and the direct popular vote. Proportional Plan This plan would eradicate the winner-take-all system for each state’s electoral vote and do away with the state’s electors. Each state would preserve its current number of electoral votes, but these votes would be divided in proportion to the division of the popular vote within each state. For example, if a candidate won 60 percent of the popular vote in a state, the candidate would receive 60 percent of that state’s electoral votes. Some proportional reforms also suggest the candidate with the most electoral votes would win the election. “Proponents of the proportional plan argue that this plan comes the closest of any of the other plans to electing the President and Vice President by popular vote while still preserving each state’s Electoral College strength” (Whitaker & Neale, 2001). Critics argue the plan would complicate the election process because third-party candidates would win more electoral votes, thus putting more elections into the hands of the House of Representatives. The opponents of the proportional plan argue that it could “undermine and eventually eliminate the present two-party system by making it easier for minor parties, new parties, and independent candidates to compete in the presidential elections by being able to win electoral votes without having to win statewide elections to do so. Further, opponents argue, the states would generally have less importance as units, since the winner-take-all aspect would be eliminated” (Whitaker & Neale, 2001). District Plan This plan would maintain the Electoral College but each state would use its Congressional house districts as ‘elector’ districts. The candidate who receives the most votes in each district would win the electoral vote from the district. The candidate winning the most districts in the state would, in addition, receive two electoral votes. This plan would eliminate the winner-take-all system of the current Electoral College. The ‘house district’ plan would more accurately reflect the popular vote results for presidential candidates than the present Electoral College method. By keeping the Electoral College intact, the district plan would not deprive small or sparsely populated states of certain advantages under the present system. Each state would still be allocated at least three electoral votes, correlating to its two Senators and its one Representative, regardless of the size of the state’s population. Under this plan, critics contend, a person who wins the popular vote can still lose the election. “The district plan preserves the Electoral College method of electing the President and Vice President, with each state choosing a number of electors equal to the combined total of its Senate and House of Representatives delegations. Under the district plan, the presidential and vice presidential candidates winning a simple majority of the electoral votes would be elected” (Huckabee, 2000). Conclusion Proposals to abolish the Electoral College have failed largely because alternatives appear more problematic than the current system. The Electoral College, though an antiquated and imperfect system, is not on the way out and most likely never will be. Even if 75 percent of both houses of congress approved of a constitutional amendment, the state legislatures would not approve the change. The smaller populous states would feel left out of the process and rightly so. Alterations of the current system are possible without the need of such overwhelming approval. Three states have done just that. The most plausible of these is the ‘house district’ or the ‘proportional’ plans. Neither disregards the Electoral College but allows for the vote to be distributed in a way to more accurately reflect the sentiments of the voting public. Candidates would still have to pay attention to the less populated states and the integrity of the office would continue to be upheld through either of these systems. Presidential selection reflects a delicate balance between national and federal conceptions of democracy. Whether Americans decide to keep, change or even eliminate the Electoral College, democracy itself is not at stake only the question of how to channel and organize the popular will. The intent of this system was that the selection of a president be based solely on merit and without regard to state of origin or political party by that state’s most informed and educated individuals. The fact that the Electoral College has performed its function for over 200 years and in over 50 presidential elections by ensuring that the president has both sufficient popular support to govern and that his popular support is sufficiently distributed throughout the country to enable him to govern effectively is a tribute to the genius of the Founding Fathers. References Gregg, Gary L. “Keep the College: Debunking Myths.” National Review [online]. November 7, 2001. National Review. March 13, 2006 Huckabee, David. “Memorandum: Presidential Election Returns by Congressional District 6, 23.” Congressional Research Service. 2000. Katz, Ellis. “The American Electoral College.” International Information Programs. (n.d.). Temple University. March 13, 2006 Kimberling, William C. “The Electoral College.” FEC Office of Election Information. (n.d.). Federal Election Commission. March 13, 2006 Klinkner, Philip & McClellan, James. “Symposium – The Electoral College.” Insight on the News. December 18, 2000. Richie, Rob & Hill, Steven. “Flunking College.” Tom Paine: Common Sense [online]. June 29, 2004. March 13, 2006 Ross, Tara. “The Electoral College: Enlightened Democracy.” Legal Memorandum #15. November 1, 2004. The Heritage Foundation. March 13, 2006 Schlesinger, Arthur. The Imperial Presidency. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1973, pp. 483-84. Whitaker, L. Paige & Neale, Thomas H. “The Electoral College: An Overview and Analysis of Reform Proposals.” National Council for Science and the Environment. January 16, 2001. Read More