Description: This paper discusses the many shortcomings of the Electoral
College, and posits possible alternative electoral processes which likely be
more democratic.
Time for Reform?
Considering the failures of the Electoral College
A common misconception among American is that when they vote they elect the President.
The truth is not
nearly this simple. What in fact happens when a person votes is that there vote goes for
an Elector. This
Elector (who is selected by the respective state in which a vote is cast) casts ballots
for two individuals, the
President and the Vice-President. Each state has the same number of electors as there are
Senate and House
of Representative members for that State. When the voting has stopped the candidate who
receives the
majority of the Electoral votes for a state receives all the electoral votes for that
state. All the votes are
transmitted to Washington, D.C. for tallying, and the candidate with the majority of the
electoral votes wins
the presidency. If no candidate receives a majority of the vote, the responsibility of
selecting the next
President falls upon the House of Representatives. This elaborate system of Presidential
selection is thought
by many to be an 18th century anachronism (Hoxie p. 717), what it is in fact is the
product of a 200 year old
debate over who should select the President and why.
In 1787, the Framers in their infinite wisdom, saw the need to respect the principles of
both Federalists and
States Righters (republicans) (Hoxie p. 717). Summarily a compromise was struck between
those who felt
Congress should select the President and those who felt the states should have a say. In
1788 the Electoral
College was indoctrinated and placed into operation. The College was to allow people a
say in who lead them,
but was also to protect against the general public's ignorance of politics. Why the fear
of the peoples
ignorance of politics? It was argued that the people, left to their own devices could be
swayed by a few
designing men to elect a king or demagogue (McManus p. 19). With the Electoral College in
place the people
could make a screened decision about who the highest authority in the land was to be
(Bailey & Shafritz (p.
60); at the same time the fear of the newly formed nation being destroyed by a demagogue
could be put to rest
because wiser men had the final say.
200 years later the system is still designed to safeguard against the ignorant capacities
of the people. The
Electoral College has remained relatively unchanged in form and function since 1787, the
year of its
formulation. This in itself poses a problem because in 200 years the stakes have changed
yet the College has
remained the same. A safeguard against a demagogue may still be relevant, but the College
as this safeguard
has proved flawed in other capacities. These flaws have shed light on the many paths to
undemocratic
election. The question then is what shall the priorities be? Shall the flaws be addressed
or are they
acceptable foibles of a system that has effectively prevented the rise of a king for 200
years? To answer this
question we must first consider a number of events past and possible that have or could
have occurred as a
result of the flaws Electoral College.
The Unfaithful Elector
Under the current processes of the Electoral College, when a member of the general
electorate casts a vote
for a candidate he is in fact casting a vote for an Electoral College member who is an
elector for that
candidate. Bound only by tradition this College member is expected to remain faithful to
the candidate he has
initially agreed to elect. This has not always happened. In past instances Electoral
College member have
proved to be unfaithful. This unfaithful elector ignores the will of the general
electorate and instead selects
candidate other than the one he was expected to elect (McGaughey, p. 81). This
unfaithfulness summarily
subjugates all the votes for a candidate in a particular district. In all fairness it is
important to note that
instances of unfaithful electors are few and far between, and in fact 26 states have laws
preventing against
unfaithful electors (McGauhey, p.81). Despite this the fact remains that the possibility
of an unfaithful
elector does exist and it exists because the system is designed to circumvent around
direct popular election
of the President.
The Numbers Flaw
The unfaithful elector is an example of how the popular will can be purposely ignored.
The Numbers Flaw
reveals how the will of the people can be passed over unintentionally due to flaw of
design (McNown, Lecture
Notes, 2/20/93).
(a)6/b(4) | (a)6/b(6) Candidate a: 18
| Candidate b: 22
-------------|------------
| Electoral Votes
(a)6/b(4) | (a)0/b(10) Candidate a: 3
| Candidate b: 1
In this theoretical example candidate (a) receives a minority of the popular votes with
18, but a majority of
the electoral votes with three. Candidate (b) receives a majority of the popular votes
with 22, but receives
only one electoral vote. Under the winner-take-all system, the candidate with the
majority of the electoral
votes not only wins the state but also receives all the electoral votes for that state.
In this hypothetical
situation candidate (a) receiving a minority of the popular votes wins the state and
takes all the electoral
votes. The acceptability of this denial of the popular will, unintentional or otherwise,
is questionable to say
the least.
Tie Game
The problem posed by no one person receiving a majority of the electoral votes (a tie)
first came to head in
the 1800 elections. The success of political parties served to turn Electoral College
members into agents of
the parties Bailey & Shafritz p. 61). This so galvanized the 1800 elections that the
Republican electors cast
their two votes for the two Republican candidates, Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr
respectively. It was
assumed that Jefferson would be President and Burr the Vice-President. Unfortunately
their was no
constitutional doctrine to affirm this assumption. As a result the ever audacious Aaron
Burr challenged
Jefferson election as President and the issue had to be sent to the House for resolution
(Bailey & Shafritz, p.
61). Any debating on the issue was only incidental; when all was said and done the issue
was decided by one
man, Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton, and the Federalists were in control of the House when
the decision was to
be made. Hamilton, who disagreed with Jefferson but overwhelmingly distrusted Burr,
orchestrated a blank
ballot initiative among the Federalists which allowed the Republicans to select Jefferson
as President (Bailey
& Shafritz, p. 61). Though this entire incident was significant the most noteworthy
aspect was the fact that
the President was essentially chosen by one man. The final decision was taken entirely
out of the hands of the
people and was left to the mercy of the biases of a single individual. In all fairness it
should be noted that the
12th amendment was formulated out of the Jefferson-Burr to forever lay to rest the
question of who is
President and Vice-President in a tie. The 12th amendment stipulates that electors are to
cast separate votes
for the President and Vice President, and summarily an event such as the Jefferson-Burr
incident cannot
happen again. (Bailey & Shafritz p. 61). In effect the 12th prevents the issue of a tie
from going to the House
under a very narrow scope of conditions. This is far less of a solution than one which
would have prevented
this issue from going to the House at all because when the issue of who would be
President went to the House
in 1800, the issue of democracy was left to compromise. This all serves to reveal yet
another flaw of the
Electoral College process. Congressional selection of the President can lead to
democratic compromise. This
would seem an area of concern. Though some would argue we have had 200 years to distance
ourselves from
such maladies as the elections of 1800, the following reveals how close to home the flaws
200 year old
institution can hit.
The Wallace Debacle
In 1968 a three-way tie nearly brought to head the same undemocratic modes of
presidential selections that
emerged 200 years earlier with the Jefferson-Burr incident. The 1968 elections race was
extremely close.
Richard Nixon barley received a majority of the electoral votes to win the presidency.
Had Nixon failed to get
a majority a number of bizarre scenarios might have emerged. The candidates in the race
were Richard Nixon,
Hubert Humphrey and George Wallace respectively. Had Nixon failed to win a majority
Wallace would have been
in a position to control who the next President would be (Bailey & Shafritz p. 65).
Though he could not have
won himself Wallace could have used his votes as swing votes to give Nixon a majority, or
give Humphrey
enough to prevent Nixon from getting a majority (Bailey & Shafritz p. 65). In the latter
instance the issue
would have, as in 1800, been sent to the House for rectification. In either instance
Wallace would have had a
great deal to gain, and the temptation to wheel and deal (at the compromise of democracy)
would have been
great indeed. It is possible Wallace could have used his influence with Southern House
members to get
Humphrey elected. In the process he would have likely `garnered great political clout for
himself. Wallace
could have bargained with Nixon for an administration position in Nixon's cabinet in
return for Wallace's
electoral votes. The possible scenarios are endless, and for the most part irrelevant.
What is relevant is that
the processes of the Electoral College again paved a path for democratic compromise, just
as it did in 1800. If
time is the mechanism for change then apparently not enough time has passed.
Conclusion
The shortcomings of the Electoral College presented above are only a few of many flaws.
Others flaws include
the bias toward small and large states, which gives these states a disproportionate
advantage; The bias
toward those who live in urban areas and therefore enjoy a stronger vote than those
living in sparsely
populated areas (Bailey & Shafritz p. 63). The list of flaws is extensive. The question
that still remains is
whether or not the flaws are extensive enough to warrant change? The Electoral College
has successfully
provided the U.S. with its Presidents for 200 years and has done so without allowing the
ascension of a
demagogue. But in the process of 200 years of electing the College has allowed the will
of the people to be
compromised. Granted at the time of the 1800 elections the College was young and its
shortcomings were not
entirely clear. 200 years later the flaws have revealed themselves or have been revealed
in various fashion.
The question remains then are flaws acceptable considering the duty the College performs?
If the purpose of
the College is to provide democracy but prevent demagoguery then its success seems
uncertain. The U.S. has
seen no demagogue but has seen compromise of democracy. The evidence shows that the flaws
of the Electoral
College are responsible for democratic compromise. It would seem then that the flaws of
the college are
self-defeating to the purpose of the college. If this is then it is definitely time for
reform.
1 Bailey, Harry A. Jr., Shafritz, Jay M. The American Presidency, (California:
Brooks/Cole Publishing Co., 1988)
Chapter III
2 McGauhey, Elizabeth P., "Democracy at Risk," Policy Review, Winter 1993: 79-81
3 R. Gordon Hoxie, "Alexander Hamilton and the Electoral System Revisited," Presidential
Studies Quarterly, v.
18 n. 4 p. 717-720
4 John F. McManus, "Let the Constitution Work," The New American, v. 8 n. 14 p. 19
5 William P. Hoar, "The Electoral College: How The Republic Chooses its President," New
American, v. 8 n. 16 p.
23-28
|