The Electoral College is the process by which a President is elected in the United States of America. This system has been in place since the birth of the Constitution in 1787. The Electoral College allows the citizens of the United States to vote for a Presidential candidate indirectly through selected electors. After the 2016 election, controversy around the Electoral College has risen once again. Donald Trump was elected President despite Hillary Clinton winning the national popular vote by over 2.5 million votes. The system bypasses a direct popular vote and allows for a candidate to be elected without winning a majority of the citizen’s support. Because of the absence of a direct popular vote, Liberals and Conservatives disagree about the role of the Electoral College in the most free nation on earth.
Origins
After much debate, the Electoral College was established in 1787 at the Constitutional Convention held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. There were many options discussed on how to elect the President in a fair and non-partisan way. Some of the various methods that were discussed at the convention included: the selection of the President by Congress, selection by state governors, or a direct popular vote (History.com, 2010). After all of these options were considered, late in the convention, the Electoral College was agreed upon.
The Electoral College was viewed favorably by the framers of the Constitution because of the balance between citizen and state involvement it seemed to have struck. Some of the founding fathers feared a direct democracy and opted for a representative democracy or a republic. The second President of the United States, John Adams stated in 1814: “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide” (National, 2016). The Electoral College was an attempt to bring states with differing interests together. It was seen as a way for all states, even ones with low population, to have a say in the election process.
By implementing the Electoral College, the framers sought to also keep political partisanship out of the election of the President (History.com, 2010). If the President was chosen by either Congress or governors, as was discussed at the Convention in 1787, the election would be subject to the party in power at the time. The Electoral College was intended to encourage participation by citizens without having a direct popular vote. By having people vote for the President, the system is designed to alleviate the process from political manipulation and corruption.
Process
The Electoral College consists of 538 selected people or “electors” with 270 of the 538 possible electoral votes are required to win the Presidency. Although more than half of the electoral votes are required, a majority of the national popular vote is not necessary in order to be elected. Every state is given a number of electoral votes which is based on one factor. The numbers of electors each state is given is equal to the state’s number of members in Congress. As stated by the National Archives and Records Administration, “State’s entitled allotment of electors equals the number of members in its Congressional delegation: one for each member in the House of Representatives plus two for Senators (National, 2016).” The smallest states (based on representation in Congress) are given 3 votes, and the largest state, California, is given 55 votes. The reason California has the most votes of any state is because of its large population. This gives the state more members in the House of Representatives which results in more votes. States with a small population, such as South Dakota or Montana, only have one representative in the House and two in the senate.
The Presidential election is held every four years on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November. When voters head to the polls they are not actually voting for the President of the United States, they are voting for the electors. As put by National Archives and Records Administration (2016), the votes cast on election day decide who the electors will vote for. So, citizens are essentially voting indirectly for their leader. In twenty one of the fifty states in America, electors are not forced to vote for who the people chose. These electors who change their vote are called “faithless electors.” Faithless electors, although allowed to change their vote, can face fines, a misdemeanor, or in some cases removal from the Electoral College.
Most states have a “winner-take-all” system. Whoever wins the popular vote in a particular state will win all of the electoral votes that state has. Although most states use this rule to allocate its votes, some have a different way of doing it. All but two states award the candidate with the majority of the votes all the electoral votes that state has. Maine and Nebraska are the two exceptions and each has some variation of “proportional representation.” The “proportional representation” in Maine and Nebraska award two Electoral votes to the popular vote winner, and then one vote to the winner of each Congressional district (History, 2016). The proportional representation allows congressional districts to have a direct vote that can influence the outcome of a Presidential election.
Today
The Electoral College today is differs from the original view of the founders. Fair Vote (2006), a nonpartisan voting and research organization, shows the process has never worked exactly as the framers envisioned due to changes and amendments. Originally, the runner-up of the election became the Vice President. This changed after the election of 1800 in which Thomas Jefferson was elected President. A problem arose with the President and Vice President being from opposing political parties and having conflicting agendas. The solution came in the form of the 12th amendment. This amendment adjusted the system so each Presidential candidate could run with a Vice-President of his or her choice. This was a big change to the original system but certainly not the only one. Early in the nation’s history, each state’s legislators chose the electors thus eliminating the need for direct public involvement. This changed quickly, and today the people choose their electors (Fair, 2006).
The Electoral College system has not always been seen in a favorable light and has had opponents, from the beginning. Many people today and since the development of the system have wanted change. Founding father and fourth President of the United States of America, James Madison, said in 1823: “The present rule of voting for President…is so great a departure from the Republican principle of numerical equality…and is so pregnant also with a mischievous tendency in practice, that an amendment of the Constitution on this point is justly called for by all its considerate and best friends (Fair, 2006).” James Madison helped frame the Constitution but was opposed to the Electoral College because he feared it distorted the republic by removing power from the voters.
Opposition still exists for the Electoral College and many would like to see the system changed. Critics of the Electoral College system would prefer a different system be used to elect the leader of the free world. A popular alternative from the beginning, and even now, is a direct popular vote to elect the president. This has been seen as the most democratic way to elect a president. In the past, some of the most controversial elections have come when a President is elected without having won the national popular vote.
Five times in the history of United States, a President has won the election despite having not received a majority of the popular vote. The elections in which this occurred are: 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016 (Gore, 2016). Although in previous elections the winning candidate has lost the popular vote, it has been by less than 550,000 votes (Fair, 2006). This past election in 2016, has sparked a big controversy regarding the Electoral College because the winning candidate, Donald Trump, lost the popular vote by over 2.9 million votes (Gore, 2016). Many people believe that the Electoral College has resulted in Presidents that are not the will of the people. In an attempt to change the system, Senator Barbara Boxer of California intends on introducing legislation aimed at ending the Electoral College.
The Electoral College has its benefits and its downsides. Although flaws and critics exist, the system has been in place since the birth of the Constitution and is subject to amendments as it has been in the past. After the past election, and two presidents being elected without winning the majority of the popular vote in the past 16 years, the issue of the Electoral College’s place in a Republic is under much scrutiny.
Conservative
In the view of most conservatives, the Electoral College is the correct and most fair way to elect the President in the United States. Conservatives argue that if the Electoral College is abolished, smaller states will be forgotten on the political map. Under the current system, states with low populations have their voice heard because of the impact of electoral votes. States such as Iowa, which has about 3.2 million people, become a hotly contested battleground states that draw Presidential candidates to visit and campaign. Although Iowa has only 4 electoral votes, the state remains important because 4 votes can make the difference in the election. The argument the conservatives make is that the Electoral College makes all 50 states important when deciding the President. Spenser Mestel (2016) of the Huffington Post argues in his op-ed, that because there is such an ideological split between rural America and big cities, the Electoral College is essential to keeping representation of all citizens. Mestel says, “eliminating it would fundamentally change American politics” (Mestel, 2016). Mestel does have a valid argument because if the Electoral College was changed to a direct popular vote, the way a candidate would campaign would be changed drastically.
According to a study done by the US Department of Commerce (2010), 123.3 million people, or 39 percent of the nation’s population, lived on the coasts of the United States (National, 2010). If a direct popular vote were to take place, candidates would primarily focus on coastal states with high populations. An Editorial published by Usa Today (2016), said: “If the national popular vote were the ultimate decider, candidates would gravitate toward the voter-rich big cities and their suburbs and ignore everyone else.” The states of Florida, California, New York, and Texas are the four most populated states in the US and their interests would be heavily represented if a direct popular vote were put into place. Candidates would make their campaigns focus on issues of four states rather than the issues of the other forty six.
Although the conservatives have a valid argument when it comes to states being represented fairly, they do have some invalid points. Conservatives argue that big cities, such as Los Angeles, would have enough votes to swing the election one way or another if we used a direct popular vote. They argue that the votes of a few cities should not outweigh the votes of the rest of the nation. This logic is flawed because no matter what, all votes are equal and valuing one over the other is invalid. Under the current system, a handful of swing states have the power to give to a candidate the Presidency. A perfect example was the 2000 election.
The 43rd President of the United States George W. Bush, won the Presidency in 2000 despite having lost the popular vote. There was outrage when then Vice President Al Gore, lost the election even though a majority of the country voted for him. The Election of 2000 left the fate of the Presidency in the hands of the state of Florida. George W. Bush won the state of Florida by less than 1% of the votes, pushing his Electoral College vote total to 271; one more than the needed number to win (Fair, 2006). This issue brought the issue surrounding the Electoral College to the forefront once again. Reforms were sought in the past to change the Electoral College to a direct popular voting system, but all reform attempts did not pass. 16 years later the issue is at the forefront of political debate yet again. Donald Trump was elected President in the 2016 despite having received nearly 2.5 million votes less than his opponent Hillary Clinton. The conservatives argue that big city votes would count for more but in reality the same is happening under the current system. Instead of highly populated cities deciding the election, the Electoral College now essentially puts the election into the hands of “swing states” such as: Florida, North Carolina and Ohio, that vote differently almost every election cycle. Overall the conservatives makes a good case for the Electoral College but their logic has some flaws.
Liberal
The liberal side of the issue argues for a total system change and the abolishment of the Electoral College. Those who argue for change believe that a direct popular vote is the best way to elect a leader. A popular phrase repeated by those who want to change the system all together is “one person, one vote.” This part of the liberal argument makes sense. Each citizen of the United States should have their vote valued the same regardless of state or city. Liberals also argue that it is undemocratic to take the power from the people and put it in the hands of the electors. An editorial written by the New York Times (2016), stated: “rules should change so that a presidential election reflects the will of Americans and promotes a more participatory democracy.” The New York Times was correct in regards to voter turnout being relatively low. Under the system of the Electoral College, turnout averages about 60% among eligible voters; and between 1916-2016 voter turnout has never been above 65%. (Fair, 2016) This aspect of the liberal argument for change is valid and voter turnout overall needs to be improved.
One common argument made by writers who oppose the Electoral College is that slavery was the main reason the system was created. Akhil Amar (2016) of Time, wrote an article claiming: “In a direct election system, the North would outnumber the South, whose many slaves of course could not vote.” Some advocates who want change are tying the Electoral College directly to slavery. As a way to discredit the Electoral College, opposers call it a slave based and slave time law added to the Constitution. If the Electoral College was solely based on slavery, as claimed, the system could have been changed many times over. Changes to the Constitution have been made several times, including giving African Americans the right to vote in 1870. Changing the election system has really never been close to happening according the the United States House of Representatives. The House of Representatives claims that:
“The closest Congress has come to amending the Electoral College since 1804 was during the 91st Congress (1969–1971). H.J. Res. 681 proposed the direct election of a President and Vice President, requiring a runoff when no candidate received more than 40 percent of the vote. The resolution passed the House in 1969, but failed to pass the Senate” (History, 2016).
Electoral College reform is hard to pass but voter turnout and voter equality is the most compelling part of the liberal argument and change is needed to improve the problem.
Common Ground
Although each side has different opinions on the Electoral College, all can agree that the current system in place can be improved. The conservatives are concerned about keeping small states involved in the electoral process and the liberals are concerned about voter equality and voter turnout.
A common ground solution would be states awarding their Electoral Votes proportionally. This amended system makes sense because it brings elements from the traditional electoral college and the popular vote. A Constitutional amendment requires two thirds of the states to ratify the decision, along with the House of Representatives and the Senate. The best way to implement the new system would have the states change their electoral laws. States such as Maine and Nebraska have already implemented electoral changes. The system would work by giving each congressional district its own Electoral Vote. The winner of the most votes in each district would be given the electoral vote. This system benefits each side because each congressional district would give its votes based on the results from that specific district. Small states would be protected under this system because their electoral votes would still contribute to electing the president and every district in the country would be important. The liberal concerns would be satisfied because by allocating votes by district instead of by states as a whole, it will be a better representation of the voters’ desires.
It is important for all sides to come together because when there are questions about the legitimacy of the President Elect, it does nothing but divide the citizens and make things harder to get done in Washington DC. This solution would be mutually beneficial for both sides and citizens. This appeases liberals by allowing more of the popular vote to be a factor, thus improving voter turnout, as well as appease conservatives by keeping the basis of Electoral College intact. Another reason for keeping the basis of the Electoral College is the simplicity. As Joseph Uscinski of the Miami Herald (2016) wrote, “Dividing our national presidential election into 50 smaller elections frustrates the schemes of would-be cheaters and lets officials know where to concentrate their efforts on ensuring accuracy.” Oversight by the Federal Government would be difficult if a direct popular vote election took place. Getting results of the over 100 million votes that are cast each year would be a long process. Given the amount of polling places and voters, the current state run system is the best option to make sure the election is secure and timely.
The Electoral College is a flawed system that can be improved upon. With a new system agreed on by both sides, elections in America could be less controversial and more unity can be gained. By changing to a Proportional Electoral College, voter equality, improved voter turnout, and small states maintaining a voice can all be achieved. This change will help improve the voting system in America and will help bring both sides together in supporting an elected President.
References
Amar, A. (10, November 2016). The Troubling Reason the Electoral College Exists. Time Magazine. Retrieved from http://time.com
Editorial: Keep the Electoral College. [Editorial]. (2016, November 10). Usa Today. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com
Editorial: Time to End the Electoral College. [Editorial]. (2016, December 19). New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com
Fair Vote Staff. (2006, December). The Electoral College. Fair Vote. Retrieved from
Gore, D. (23, December 2016). Presidents Winning Without Popular Vote. Fact Check. Retrieved from http://www.factcheck.org
History.com Staff. (2010). Electoral College. History. Retrieved from
http://www.history.com
History, Art & Archives of The United States House of Representatives. Electoral College Fast Facts. History, Art & Archives. Retrieved from http://history.house.gov
National Archives and Records Administration. (2016, December 16). What is the Electoral College. National Archives. Retrieved from https://www.archives.gov
National Ocean Service. (2010). What percentage of the American population lives near the coast?. US Department of Commerce. Retrieved from http://oceanservice.noaa.gov
Mestel, S. (30, November 2016).Why The Electoral College Is More Relevant Today Than Ever Before. Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com
Uscinski, J. (7, November 2016).The real election is in December when the Electoral College votes. Miami Herald. Retrieved from http://www.miamiherald.com