|
|
 |
|
The
views expressed
on this page are soley those of the author and do not
necessarily
represent the views of County News Online
|
 |
The Daily Signal
Why We Use
Electoral College, Not Popular Vote
Jarrett Stepman
November 07, 2016
The Electoral College remains in place over two centuries after the
framers of the Constitution empowered it to select presidents. Though
occasionally maligned, this system of electing a chief executive has
been incredibly successful for the American people.
Many modern voters might be surprised to learn that when they step into
a ballot box to select their candidate for president, they actually are
casting a vote for fellow Americans called electors. These electors,
appointed by the states, are pledged to support the presidential
candidate the voters have supported. The Electoral College holds its
vote the Monday after the second Wednesday in December following the
election.
The Founding Fathers created the Electoral College after much debate
and compromise, but it has provided stability to the process of picking
presidents. Though the winner of the national popular vote typically
takes the presidency, that vote failed to determine the winner in four
elections: 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000.
Some see the Electoral College as a peculiar and mystifying institution
that ensures only a few, select individuals will ever cast a direct
vote for president in the United States. Others complain that the
system rewards smaller states with more proportional power than the
large ones.
Every four years, around election time, there are murmurs about
revamping the system and moving toward a direct, national popular vote.
The Founders’ College
As one of The Heritage Foundations legal experts, Hans von Spakovsky,
noted in a paper on the Electoral College: “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.”
Some elements of the Electoral College, such as the indirect vote
through intermediaries, were hotly debated at the 1787 Constitutional
Convention. It was eventually justified in part as a stopgap to
potentially reverse the vote if the people elected a criminal, traitor,
or similar kind of heinous person. The Founders wanted to empower
democratic elements in the American system, but they feared a kind of
pure, unrestrained democracy that had brought down great republics of
the past.
The product of the Founders’ compromise has been well balanced and
enduring, and we would be wise to leave it intact.
Alexander Hamilton defended the Electoral College in Federalist 68. He
argued that it was important for the people as a whole to have a great
deal of power in choosing their president, but it was also “desirable”
that “the immediate election should be made by men most capable of
analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under
circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination
of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their
choice.”
Hamilton also wrote that this system of intermediaries would produce a
greater amount of stability, and that an “ … intermediate body of
electors will be much less apt to convulse the community with any
extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of one who was
himself to be the final object of the public wishes.”
As students of ancient history, the Founders feared the destructive
passions of direct democracy, and as recent subjects of an overreaching
monarch, they equally feared the rule of an elite unresponsive to the
will of the people. The Electoral College was a compromise, neither
fully democratic nor aristocratic.
The Constitution states:
Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may
direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of senators and
representatives to which the state may be entitled in the Congress.
In addition to balancing the protection of individual rights and
majority rule, the Founding Fathers attempted to create a “federalist”
system that would keep most of policymaking power reserved to
states and localities. America’s presidential election system also was
designed to empower the states, not just the American people as an
undifferentiated mass.
The total number of electors and thus electoral votes across all states
and the District of Columbia—included after the passage of the 23rd
Amendment—adds up to 538. The winner must receive a majority, or 270,
of these votes to become president.
The system empowers states, especially smaller ones, because it
incentivizes presidential candidates to appeal to places that may be
far away from population centers. Farmers in Iowa may have very
different concerns than bankers in New York. A more federalist system
of electing presidents takes that into account.
The states are free to select the method in which they choose their
electors. In the early days of the republic, most states chose to have
their legislatures pick electors, rather than the people. But, over
time, the states shifted to choosing electors via the state’s popular
vote instead. Every state has opted for popular election at least since
the Civil War.
Calls to Abolish
Modern opponents of the Electoral College argue against what they call
antidemocratic aspects of the institution, criticizing both the
intermediary electors and the state-by-state system of voting.
Calls to fundamentally change the Electoral College reached a peak
after Republican George W. Bush defeated Democrat Al Gore in the
tightly contested 2000 election. Gore narrowly won the national popular
vote, and many of his supporters howled that the system—even
without the Supreme Court stepping in—was unfair.
One organization, National Popular Vote, has worked toward eliminating
the Electoral College through an amendment to the Constitution or a
state compact. National Popular Vote argues that the current system
encourages presidential candidates to spend most of their time in
“swing states” rather than campaigning for votes across the entire
country.
This plan for a national popular vote has received a moderate level of
support, but Heritage’s von Spakovsky has called it bad policy, based
on mistaken assumptions. Swing states, he wrote, “can change from
election to election, and many states that are today considered to be
reliably ‘blue’ or ‘red’ in the presidential race were recently
unpredictable.”
Many states have signed on to a bill that essentially would tie a
state’s electoral votes to the national popular vote. Those states will
pledge to swing all of their electoral votes to the winner of the
national vote.
But this is because the incentives would be to appeal only to the
biggest population centers. Swing states change over time, and the 2016
election could be a prime example of swing-state unpredictability and
erosion of the traditional partisan political map.
Additionally, if the president were elected by unfiltered national
vote, small and rural states would become irrelevant, and campaigns
would spend their time in large, populous districts.
Over 200 Years of Success
Unneeded tinkering with a process that is over two centuries old could
destabilize one on the steadiest political systems in the world.
As author and Texas lawyer Tara Ross wrote in a Heritage Foundation
memorandum:
America’s election systems have operated smoothly for more than 200
years because the Electoral College accomplishes its intended purposes.
America’s presidential election process preserves federalism, prevents
chaos, grants definitive electoral outcomes, and prevents tyrannical or
unreasonable rule. The Founding Fathers created a stable, well-planned,
and carefully designed system—and it works.
On Election Day, Americans should appreciate the great and long-lasting
constitutional tradition bequeathed to them—including the quirky
Electoral College system created by the nation’s Founders.
Read this and other articles at The Daily Signal
|
|
|
|
