In order to fully understand the underlying problems of the Electoral College we have to look back at the time that the idea of the Electoral College itself was proposed and see how the culture of the time and the ideologies of the people involved helped shaped the final outcome. Life today is much different than it was two hundred odd something years ago, and it’s fair to say that the political ideals and social norms around our society have changed drastically.
When the founding fathers sat down at the table to discuss the process of the national election of the highest office of the land they had a lot of things on their minds. For starters the country as they knew it was composed of 13 states, each with a cut-throat either be in first place or be last mentality. One thing all the states shared however was a deep disdain and fear of an overpowered, tyrannical and overbearing central government. The nation was comprised of only 4 million people all distributed up and down the eastern seaboard making communication very difficult (or at least meaningful and quick contact was out of the question). The political culture at the time was very anti-partisan, in other words political parties were looked down upon and seen as “evil” and polarizing or unnecessary. The people, and the founding fathers more importantly, felt that the office of the presidency should not be occupied by someone who chases or seeks the office, but rather that the office should seek them. It’s clear to see that the founding fathers had a plate-full in front of them to say the least. They had to make a system that excluded the participation of political parties, had no national campaigns, and didn’t upset the balance between the three branches (executive, legislative, and judicial) that they had worked so hard to establish in the Constitution.
If we were listening in on the conversation going on at the table we would be able to see that there were three predominant theories on how the president should be elected. The first idea was for Congress to choose the president by voting on the candidates they saw fit. The main problem with this idea was the tilt of power towards the legislative branch. If the legislative branch was given this express power of ushering in the executive not only would it tilt the balance of power towards the legislative but it would also open the door wide to corruption and bargaining. The second option on the table was the election of the president of the United States by the state legislatures (much like the Senators were first elected). The biggest fear behind this idea was the possibility of an executive that was too intertwined with the state, an executive who slowly worked with the state and helped them erode the power of the central government. This would undermine the whole idea of the republic that the founding fathers were trying to build and thus was an idea that was quickly disregarded. The third and final proposal was the direct election of the president by the people, or now more famously known as the popular or national vote. The biggest problem behind this proposition is the likeliness of the electorate to vote for a “favorite son” or a figure that they identify with personally rather than politically and in terms of ideology. In the minds of the founding fathers this gave too much power to the larger and more populous states, thus giving them more importance in the grand scheme of things. The all too well known idea of the tyranny of the majority is often attributed to this proposal as well. The framers of the Constitution on many occasions warned the country of the tyranny of the majority and the importance of staying out of factions or political parties.
The framers had a difficult decision to make ahead of them so they put their heads together and came out with the modern model that we still have today, the Electoral College. The Electoral College was ultimately nothing more than a compromise of the three ideas discussed previously. The founding fathers established under Article 2 Section 1 of the United States Constitution a system in which each state would be allocated votes or electors based on the number of Senators (2) and Representatives in each state (this builds on the compromise made between small and big states made earlier in the Constitution when the Senate was divided into 2 houses, the Upper house (senate) and Lower house (House of Reps.). These electors were prohibited from being members of the federal government in order to once again preserve the balance of power between the legislative and executive. The electors in no way shape or form were tied down to vote in line with the way the population did, and at first the winner of the majority vote in the Electoral College was the president. (Elect.) The runner-up automatically became the Vice-President; this was later changed with the 12th Amendment to the Constitution, which set out clear guidelines for the election of the President and Vice-President. Another key part that the 12th Amendment changed was the electors and the amount of votes each elector had. In the original draft of the Constitution each elector was entitled to two votes for the presidency, the 12th Amendment changed all of that and made it so that each elector only had one vote and it was only used to vote for the president. The presidential candidate of course in the post 12th Amendment period chooses his or her Vice-Presidential running mate once the general election gets under way.
Some scholars and politicians look at this and say there’s nothing wrong with it. It’s not broken so why fix it? These are the same people who fail to see the simple fact that a candidate can win the majority or the popular vote and still not get the office he or she rightfully deserves under this system. If we as the voters choose one candidate and the output of this political election machine gives us a completely different output or result can we really call our elections free and meaningful? The answer to this question is simply, no. Under no circumstances can we have these intermediate middlemen that we call the electors decide the outcome of our elections. Who are they to decide who we want as the next president elect of the United States? Does it not scare us as a society that these electors have no enforced rules or obligations forcing them to vote in line with the public vote? The founding fathers had their own personal vendettas against tyranny of the majority, and the fear of factions but those fears were justified because of the political culture and the societal standards that they lived under. Today is a different day in American History, it’s the information age, and without communication problems and with almost every home in America with some form of T.V or internet access it’s getting easier and easier for candidates to appeal more and more easily to the masses.
The problem of the uneducated masses still persists, but as educated and as uneducated as we may or may not be do we not all deserve our say in this country? As American citizens we deserve our right to go into the ballot box on Election Day and pull the lever or color in the bubble next to the candidate we want to run our country. No further argument is required on the issue of the inadequacies of the Electoral College than the re-statement of the Supreme Court decision that was made after the 2000 Bush vs. Gore national election.
“The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College U.S Const. Article 2 Section 1”,
With the ruling in Bush vs. Gore the Supreme Court stuck the last dagger through the heart of the Electoral College. If the Electoral College does not guarantee the citizens their fair vote then why is this system still present to this day? There is no doubt that change is feared and the status quo has an advantage over a new idea, but if 70 % of the country currently supports the initiative to implement the national popular vote then why are we not chomping at the bit to make our mark on society and American political culture?
In place of the Electoral College the national popular vote should be implemented and the idea of electors choosing for us should be completely thrown out of the equation. Currently there is a bill proposed that would do just this, so far it has 27% of the 270 electoral votes needed to be implemented. There have been 6 enactments of the bill in states such as Massachusetts, New Jersey, Hawaii, Illinois, Washington, and Maryland. The added up total of electors is 73, in order for this bill to gain any traction and actually have a shot at being implemented it would have to be enacted in many more state legislatures, ultimately resulting in 270 electors being accounted for in total.
By following up on this initiative we’re saying out with the old and in with the new, not only will this give more power to the people but it will also make the voting process one of more significant value to the everyday American citizen. Under the Electoral College System a vote in the state of Wyoming is worth more than a vote in the state of Texas because proportionally the person in Wyoming is a bigger piece of the pie and hence their vote will mean more in terms of who the elector will be “obliged” to vote for. In the newly proposed popular vote system everyone’s vote would be of equal value no matter the state lines.
The other important fact worth mentioning about elections is voter turnout. In a popular direct election the incentive to vote would be back in the voters minds. In the current Electoral College system we see a huge drop in the competitiveness of the races when comparing states. Some states are known as red states some are known as blue states and for the most part there’s no huge discrepancy when it comes down to Election Day. The way the states fall in terms of political party loyalty is often times the way they vote. If each individual had their own separate individual vote, it would be much harder to predict each state’s result and it would make campaigns appeal more to the masses instead of being targeted at the influential public. A system where the popular vote loser can waltz in and claim the presidency is one that cannot be called a representative democratic system. The most significant opposition to the Electoral College comes from the idea that it’s against our democratic ideals. If we’re truly a democracy then why can’t each person have their own vote and their own say? If the president is truly the representative of the people then why are the electors there as intermediaries in the system?
Under the current Electoral College system the majority of campaigning goes on in the large states which carry the most electorate votes. This puts a spotlight on the races in these states and isolates or leaves out voters in other states. Sure voters in smaller states can claim that their vote means more under this current election system but it’s offset by the fact that no politician running for the office of the President would shell out large amounts of campaign money to campaign in a small “irrelevant” state. (Wyoming which has 3 electoral votes) The current Electoral College system favors big states and states which carry a significant amount of the electoral vote, and in a race for the executive office of this country does that really make sense? Shouldn’t all voters matter and shouldn’t all votes be counted?
In conclusion it’s safe to say that the whole nation suffers when the individual voters know that their respective votes don’t matter. By eliminating the Electoral College system we’re putting an end to a system that has failed us on numerous occasions by electing a president that did not win a majority of the popular vote. We’re throwing out the idea that change is best left out of the political arena, and we’re building a better future for America starting now. There is no question that when the framers sat down at the Constitutional convention the ideals of the time were much different than they are now, the political atmosphere was still being impacted by the Revolution and many of the articles in the Constitution (including Article 2 Section 1) were influenced by this. Today is a different day and a different time, it’s a time for America to say no to the continuation of the same old, and chart a new path towards even greater social and political freedoms. There is no greater freedom or responsibility than knowing that you as an individual can vote for the person you want to elect, directly.