In Offense of the Electoral College
The Electoral College, in its current form, is undemocratic, effectively disenfranchises millions of Americans, discourages participation in government, and has drifted away from what the framers of our Constitution intended. A system that allows for a candidate to receive less than 25% of the popular vote, and still become president of the United States has fatal flaws and has no place in a modern democracy. Though we have yet to see something that egregious in an election, our refusal to modernize despite demographic trends will only exacerbate the disparities where twice in the past 20 years the president was not chosen by a majority of the American people.
The Framers’ Intentions
Since the national popular vote was first recorded in 1824, there have been five presidential elections where the winner lost the popular vote, the most recent being Donald Trump who, in 2016, lost the popular vote by 2.9M. In fact, the year that votes were first recorded, John Quincy Adams won neither the Electoral College nor the popular vote, losing by 15 EC votes and 44K in the popular vote. This begs the question, why is the president elected by the Electoral College instead of through direct democracy, like both the US House and Senate, State Houses and Senates, and State governors.
In a Heritage Foundation paper, Hans von Spakovsky noted “In creating the basic architecture of the American government, the Founders struggled to satisfy each state’s demand for greater representation while attempting to balance popular sovereignty against the risk posed to the minority from majoritarian rule.” Though debated thoroughly, the Electoral College was created as a compromise between a president chosen by congress and a president chosen by a popular vote. This balanced empowering individuals through democracy and creating an intermediate body to protect against previous failings of unrestrained democracy. This system is similar to our Republic of congress, whereby elected individuals make policy decisions. However, the Electoral College creates a second degree of separation between policy decisions of the president and the electorate.
The framers were aware of the issue of so-called mob rule, since they themselves were elites. They were scared of the prospect of every white man being able to vote directly on policy, which they feared could lead to a form of tyranny of the majority. As such, the United States is a Democratic Republic, whereby representatives elected directly by the people, would make decisions on behalf of the electorate. If it is sufficient for senators and representatives to be chosen by direct democracy by those they represent, why not also the president? There is still an elected office between the electorate and the decisions made. The United States being a democratic republic protects us from the so-called mob rule, not the Electoral College. If the intention was to subvert the popular vote when the people select demagogues, criminals, or the inept, the Electoral College cannot be a guaranteed solution. States are allowed to appoint their electors as they choose. If every state were to outlaw faithless electors, as is their lawful ability to, then there would be no intermediary between the Electoral College and the will of the people, thereby rendering this possible intention worthless.
Additionally, it would be silly to say that the framers of the Constitution had the advantage of small rural states in mind when the Constitution was written. In 1800, 94% of Americans lived in rural areas. The urban majority shift to cities didn’t occur until 1920. I don’t believe, therefore, that the framers expected this shift and wanted to protect small states from the tyranny of larger, more populated states. Instead it was originally a balance of direct democracy, a republic, and an aristocracy. It was created to prevent regional politicians from ignoring other parts of the United States and simply focusing on a specific area. It was a compromise to give power to smaller slave holding states that wanted to see an advantage not only in representation through the racist three fifths compromise, but also in the presidential election.
Lastly, it is very unlikely the founding fathers knew what the world would be like today. Even if they did, I would not exactly trust the opinions of 39 young, white, land holding men from 1787 to decide what is best for the United States in 2020. They did not agree that black Americans could be considered people, or that women have an equal place in the world. They knew nothing of the technologies that would propel our country to prominence after the two world wars they were entirely ignorant of. Yes the founding fathers were able to create the longest lasting democracy in history, but that doesn’t mean their ideas were perfect. There is a reason why there have been 27 amendments to the Constitution, with the latest change being proposed on March 23, 1971! We are in an evolving democracy, and it is ignorant of us to assume that those 39 while men in 1787 knew what would be best for our country now in 2020. We have the power to improve our country, and currently, the Electoral College remains an artifact that stands in the way of millions of Americans participating in choosing their president.
Issues with the Electoral College
The Electoral College does not ensure that small states are given additional consideration in presidential campaigning. I cannot recall, in my relatively short life, a time when a presidential candidate seriously campaigned in Texas. Why not? Because it is not a swing state. Due to the ineffectiveness of the Electoral College, a majority of resources in presidential campaigns are focused among the states that have possibilities of swinging either way. This guarantees that the presidential candidates have to consider minority issues of these states far more than those from a solidly Republican or Democratic state. In 2008, there were 18 states that no presidential candidate visited within 2 months of the election with two-thirds of visits and funding going to just six states and 94% going to just twelve. That doesn’t sound like small states being heard or cared about, nor does it guarantee their concerns are to be heard. As long as small states are solidly Republican or Democratic, no mind will be paid to them by either party. Additionally, because of the dispersion of US cities, there is no way to just visit a few large population centers and win over a majority of the people, as is a common rebuttal. The top 100 cities in the US make up less than 20% of the total population. Therefore, even without the Electoral College, it is necessary for candidates to consider the needs of larger groups of populations than just a few select cities.
Being in a more populated state, we Texans should be angry by our poor representation. A Texan vote for president counts only 28.4% of a Wyoming vote for president. Why is it that those in Wyoming should have 3.5 times the voting power of us in Texas? This problem will only continue to worsen. By 2040, it is projected that the United States will have 380M people. As this growth will be concentrated in urban areas, states that are currently underrepresented will likely grow less represented with time. As time goes on, our votes in Texas count less and less, and the Electoral College, in its current state, has no remedy for this problem.
Most of all, the reason why I want to see the Electoral College abolished is because I want my vote for president to count. As a progressive in a solidly red state and district, my vote for president does nothing. As long as I am the guaranteed minority party, there is no reason for me to vote for President. This is a deeply troubling and discouraging reality to come to grips with. A liberal in Texas or a conservative in California have no way, with the Electoral College, to influence the outcome of the presidential election. That alone should be disqualifying for the institution. Why should people participate in our government, when they are essentially barred from impacting an election based on where they live? Even more ridiculous is the impact it has on the winning side as well. Why should Democrats in California or Republicans in Texas actually show up to vote for president when it is almost guaranteed that their state will go their way? The Electoral College encourages complacency in our citizens, and nullifies the votes of 63M people who voted for the losing side in their state. I think those votes matter, and I think it’s important for our electoral systems to reflect those values. Unfortunately, with the outdated system of the Electoral College, we will only see a continual worsening of our democracy and render useless the voices of millions of Americans in the selection of our president.
Subverting the Electoral College
Currently, there is an effort to effectively remove the Electoral College without requiring a constitutional amendment. As outlined in the Constitution, States have wide discretion in the appointment of electors. Therefore, States may require, legally, that electors vote for the winner of the popular vote within their state, or even the popular vote of the entire country. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement between States to appoint electors for whatever candidate wins the popular vote. The catch is the agreement does not become binding until enough States join the agreement as to guarantee 270 Electoral College votes. Currently, the agreement has 196 electoral votes. Once it reaches the threshold, then it will not matter how the remaining states appoint electors, as it would be guaranteed for the president to be selected by the national popular vote, a direct democratic process.
Possible issues with this agreement is the Compact Clause of the Constitution, whereby “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress … enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State.” The constitutionality of the NPVIC likely will not be decided until it determines the outcome of an election, which could be many years down the line. With each state added, the next becomes more reluctant. So, what could we do to fix the Electoral College today?
Fixing the Electoral College
If the framers did think the current Electoral College was the proper way to select the president, the size of congress would have been fixed. In order to address the population disparities we are currently living through, the US used to add more members to congress to protect against such unequal treatment of citizens between various states. The so-called “Wyoming Rule” used to ensure that representation in the House was apportioned by the smallest population state, where the size of the house was increased to account for ratios of the smallest state to the largest state. Because this rule was given up due to a resolution in 1929 after a controversy during the 1920 census, the number of seats in the house has remained fixed at the 1910 census number, 435 seats. There is no reason why we cannot double the number of seats in the house to more evenly apportion representation. It is possible that we simply increase the size of the House to 547 seats to follow the Wyoming Rule. This would not go against what the framers intended, nor would it be any different from how our country determined the size of the house since before 1929. If you believe in the Electoral College and the intention of the framers of the Constitution, then the Wyoming rule should be reimplemented such that the disparity of congressional representation between states can be remedied. This would reduce the likelihood of presidents being elected without winning the popular vote and would not require an amendment to the Constitution (though some renovations might need to be made to expand the white house).
Conclusions
There have been multiple constitutional amendments proposed to abolish the Electoral College. The closest we came to removing it was with the Bayh–Celler amendment of 1969. The amendment passed the house and even began debate in the senate, but was quickly filibustered by small states wanting to retain their power. Unable to receive the two-thirds majority needed to end the filibuster, the amendment failed. It is fitting that the last time we got close to removing this undemocratic institution, our efforts were stopped by a minority acting in their own best interest. The Electoral College is a holdover from undemocratic and racist ideals that the people must be further removed from the president than any other elected official. The inability of the Electoral College to grow or evolve in the past 100 years has exacerbated its flaws, and we are at a breaking point. When so many today are challenging the foundations of our democracy, we should not keep a system that causes people to lose faith in the election process. I want my vote to count. As do I want yours. Fix the Electoral College or get rid of it.