America's method of electing Presidents,
colloquially referred to as the Electoral College, has come under
fire in the aftermath of the 2000 presidential election. That
election was the first in more than 100 years to feature a
discrepancy between the popular and electoral vote outcomes.
Today's unenthusiastic views on the Electoral College would
surprise the founding generation. They considered the Electoral
College to be one of the greatest achievements of the
Constitutional Convention.
The
Electoral College was originally conceived as a compromise between
the large and the small states, and it still serves the nation well
today. The federalist nature of the presidential election system
ensures that Presidents will represent the wide variety of
subcultures that span the nation. The Electoral College, together
with the winner-take-all system, encourages moderation, compromise
and coalition building, as well as stability and certainty in
elections. The two main alternatives that are often proposed--the
District Plan and the Proportional Plan--cause more problems than
they solve.
The
Constitution's Election Process. American presidential
elections are conducted by a national tally of states' electoral
votes, rather than individual votes. State legislatures must
determine the method by which their representatives in this
national election, referred to as electors, are chosen for their
states. All states today rely upon a popular election for the
selection of electors. Forty-eight states and the District of
Columbia award their entire slate of electoral votes on a
"winner-take-all" basis. Maine and Nebraska allocate electors based
partly on the state vote winner and partly on congressional
district results.
A
President is elected when one candidate obtains a majority of these
states' electoral votes (currently 270 electoral votes). If no
candidate obtains a majority, the election goes to Congress under a
contingent election procedure. In such an election, the House
selects a President and the Senate selects a Vice President. A
contingent election of a President last occurred in 1824, and is
unlikely to occur again in a dominant two-party race.
Origins of the
Electoral College and the Benefits of Federalism. The
Founders sought a unique solution to two contradictory goals facing
the new country: How could they allow the sense of the people to be
reflected in the government, yet still protect the minority from
the dangers of unreasonable majority rule? They accomplished their
objective by creating a federalist republic in which majorities
would rule, but minorities would always have opportunities to make
their voices heard. The Electoral College fell into line nicely
with this new governmental structure.
The
federalist nature of the American presidential election system has
an important benefit: It requires presidential candidates to build
nationwide coalitions and to show that they will be good
representatives for a diverse nation composed of both small and
large sovereign states. Presidential candidates cannot succeed if
they focus too narrowly on a handful of states, regions, or
metropolitan population centers. Critics dispute the benefits of
federalism in the presidential election process, arguing instead
that state-by-state voting causes some individual votes to be
"wasted" or encourages a focus on "swing" states to the exclusion
of "safe" ones. Their arguments, however, do not hold up under
scrutiny.
Stability and
Certainty in Elections. Critics of the Electoral College
make the mistake of assuming that they can change the Electoral
College without changing any other element of the political system.
To the contrary, elimination of the Electoral College is likely to
undermine the two-party system--a system that has encouraged
moderation and compromise in American politics. Without a two-party
system, the electorate would splinter its votes among many
candidates. Multi-candidate presidential races would result in
constant recounts, uncertainty, and consistent runoffs.
The
Electoral College also has the benefit that it tends to magnify the
margin of victory for presidential candidates, removing uncertainty
from elections that are close in the popular vote. Moreover, the
Electoral College controls the incidence of fraud and error in
presidential elections. Fraud cannot be completely eliminated when
ambitious men are vying for power, but its impact can be minimized.
The Electoral College accomplishes this purpose by isolating
problems to one or a handful of states. The scenarios seen in
Florida in 2000 are not seen on a national scale, as they would be
under a close, direct popular election.
The District and
Proportional Plan Alternatives. Two commonly proposed
alternatives to the Electoral College would allocate votes either
by congressional district or proportionately, according to the
outcome of the popular vote in each state. These plans cause more
problems than they solve. The District Plan would promote increased
gerrymandering of congressional districts and a focus on "swing
districts." The Proportional Plan would encourage contested
election outcomes, because at least one electoral vote in each
state would constantly be open to dispute. Colorado's pending
proposal to adopt such a plan via referendum is unconstitutional.
Moreover, its most immediate impact, if adopted, will be to
minimize Colorado's importance in presidential elections.
Conclusion. America's presidential
election process preserves federalism, promotes moderation and
compromise, and grants definitive electoral outcomes. The unique
presidential election process created by the Founding Fathers has
served the nation well for more than 200 years and should be
retained.
Tara Ross is a lawyer in Texas and the author
of Enlightened Democracy: The Case for the Electoral College
(World Ahead Publishing, November 2004).