In Defense of the Electoral College


With the surprising election of Donald Trump as the 45th president, having a majority of votes in the Electoral College but fewer general election ballots than Hillary Clinton, once again the cry for eliminating the Electoral College is being loudly proclaimed by many, particularly Democrats. I contend, however, that the Electoral College is needed now as much as it was needed in 1787, despite the changes in technology, education, etc. that are often cited as reasons the Electoral College is no longer relevant, if it ever was.

As of the writing of this blog, two days after the 2016 election, Donald Trump leads 279-228 over Hillary Clinton, exceeding the 270 electors needed for victory, despite there still being 3 states not yet official. It looks, however, like Arizona (11) and Michigan (16) will go to Trump and New Hampshire (4) going by a razor thin margin to Clinton, making the final total 305-233.

However, in terms of actual votes cast, Secretary Clinton appears likely to end up with more ballots in her favor by a margin of 48% to 47%, with Libertarian Gary Johnson taking 3%, Green Party Jill Stein taking 1%, and the remaining 0.7% scattered. Clinton's margin over Trump is currently at 301,000, or 0.2% of the total. In fact, since absentee ballots are not counted when they would not affect a state's resukt, there beey well could be enough difference hiding in thise envelopes to give Trump thenpopular vote, too. Let's assume not and move on. Previously, in 2000 when Al Gore narrowly won the direct vote despite losing to George W. Bush in the electoral college after the Supreme Court stopped an endless and messy recount in Florida, the margin was only 543,895, or  0.5% of the total. Is this common? No, you must go back to 1888 for the previous occurrence.

So, why would I support the Electoral College "stealing" the election from Hillary Clinton? Let me start by saying it's not because I opposed Clinton's election. I also opposed Trump's election. No, it's because the Electoral College system is more fair as a method for a nation as large and diverse as ours, even though I would recommend improvements.

How does this "antiquated" system work? When we vote for President and Vice President we are actually voting for Electors that will cast their votes on January 7 to elect the next Commander in Chief. Each state has a number of electors equal to the number of representatives plus the number of senators from that state. So, a small state with 1 representative has 1+2=3 votes, while a large state like California has 53+2=55 votes. If no candidate get a majority of votes in in the Electoral College, then the newly elected House of Representatives selects the President from the top 3 finishers in the EC, while the newly elected Senate selects the Vice President from the top 2 finishers in the EC.

You can find a lot more information online, but I recommend the FAQ on the official site: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html

So, how is this fair and better than a direct election?
  1. What about years like 2016 (or 1996, 1992, etc.) when no candidate gets a majority of the popular vote? It would require a costly and time-consuming run-off election. That would not only be very expensive but would also take away time for the newly elected president to transition into the role, especially in terms of assembling their Cabinet and White House staff.  Counting 2016, there have been 13 of 57 elections won clearly in the Electoral College but won only by plurality in the general election.
  2. Just look at Illinois. We elect the governor with a direct state-wide vote, and inevitably we get whoever Chicago wants. Chicago's voice matters--a lot, but the governor needs to serve the entire state. At a national level, it's even more critical. Increasingly more of our population is concentrating in cities, but much of the country remains rural, and the president needs to serve the interests of both segments of the population.

Now, in my opinion, it would be much better if we made some improvements, specifically in the way states allocate their electors. Each state determines how they select their electors, and most have decided on a "winner take all" model, where the winner in the general election statewide gets all the electors for that state. A couple exceptions are Maine and Nebraska, which use the method that I believe should be adopted nationally.

Proportional allotment allows each district to elect one elector, with the winner of the state-wide vote getting the other two. Again, take my home state of Illinois. All 20 of our votes went to Clinton even though many districts overwhelmingly supported Trump. The reverse would be true in Texas with 38 votes.

How does that work out in actual numbers? I haven't found a breakdown of votes by district, but look at the vote for representatives as a guide to how local districts would probably vote. If every district supported the presidential candidate of the same party as their representative in 2016, then Trump would have 241 and Clinton would have 192 local district electors. The statewide votes by state in 2016 were 29 states for Trump and 21 states for Clinton, with 2 from each state bringing the total to 241+29x2=299 for Trump and 192+21x2=244 for Clinton. Trump would win 299-244 instead of 305-233. In 2008 Obama's 365-173 win would have been 257+58=315 to 178+41=219. In both cases, a narrower victory but still a clear victory.

So, why is proportional allotment better than the currently predominant method of winner-take-all?
  1. Increase voter turnout. How many people don't bother voting because they think their vote won't matter?  How many Republicans stay home in blue states and Democrats stay home in red states, especially if the representative is running unopposed and there are no big ballot measures?
  2. Reduce the influence of a few swing states. Most of the electioneering takes place in a few states that decided the final outcome. By having electors less certain in purple districts in many more states, the presidential candidates need to work harder to appeal to all of America instead of just people in a few swing states.
  3. If we could get rid of blatant Gerrymandering as part of the change, we would have an even more fair allocation of electors and a better picture of our population through our representatives in Congress.
  4. Third party candidates have a better chance at gaining electors from single districts and establishing more legitimacy.
Bottom line? The Electoral College, once modified to require proportional voting in all states, is the best solution. Just remember the following key points:
  1. Who wants a costly and time consuming run-off election in years like 2016, 1996, or 1992 when there is no candidate with a clear majority in the direct vote?
  2.  The newly elected president should have time to put together an administration and start the transition process without having to wait for a run-off election.
  3. It's better to be elected by appealing to the the diverse larger number of states and both rural and urban voters than to just appeal to the specific needs of a few  of a concentration of the population mostly in the large cities.
  4. It's better to win with a comfortable margin the Electoral College than a narrow margin in the general election, especially if the losing candidate starts filing requests for recounts in multiple districts across the country that have a possibility of turning around the result, while the winner counters with recounts in other districts to try and extend the lead.
If you're still not convinced, try the article below, which makes the case better than me, even while defending the winner-take-all approach as one of the virtues of the Electoral College.

Comments

Post a Comment