Contributors
J.F. Kelly, Jr. - Contributor

J.F. Kelly, Jr. is a retired Navy Captain and bank executive who writes on current events and military subjects. He is a resident of Coronado, California. [go to Kelly index]

Living With the Electoral College System
What did the Founders know?...
[J. F. Kelly, Jr.] 11/3/04

After every close presidential election, the cry is heard, usually from voters disappointed with the outcome, that the electoral college system should be abolished and the president elected by direct vote of the people. Actually, the cry has been heard more or less constantly since Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000 but lost the election.

Critics of the electoral college method of determining who will become the world’s most powerful political leader cite, as their primary argument, the one-person, one-vote principle they claim is fundamental to the democratic process. That is debatable, of course. In a typical election, only about half of the eligible voters bother to vote at all. The half that does exercises a lot more influence on the outcome than the half that doesn’t. So much for the one- person, one- vote principle.

Those who are disillusioned by the current system also point to the fact that it is little understood by those in other countries which they think is a shame because our elections are closely watched and can have profound effects on other nations. People in foreign lands think it bizarre, it is said, that under our system a candidate can win the popular vote and still lose the election. It should be simpler, they argue. Whoever gets the most votes should win. But, alas, life is not always simple and our constitution, a complex and wonderful document, is a good illustration of that.

We have many examples of situations where a simple majority of the vote does not determine an election issue. Tax increases, for example, often require a super-majority of as much as two-thirds and for good reason. The tax burden should only be increased when a substantial majority of those taxed agrees to it. In our legislative chambers and courts, some actions can be taken only with a unanimous or nearly unanimous vote.

Those who are unhappy with the electoral college system have only the Constitution to blame. Our founding fathers devised a system that took into account the rights of each state as well as those of each citizen. These conditions were in effect as each state entered the union. To change them now would be viewed by many if not most states as grossly unfair.

Abolishing the electoral college would shift power away from less populous states to heavily populated ones and from rural America to the big cities. As it is, population is already the greatest determinant of power in the presidential election process but even the most sparsely populated states, with two senators and at least one representative have at least three electoral votes and are crucially important players in some elections. Direct election of a president would vastly decrease their influence in presidential elections.

Our system reflects the reality that we are a federation of states in which each subordinates some but not all of its power to a common authority. Its workings are sometimes messy but it provides for something of a balance between states’ rights and the right of each voter. The U.S. House of Representatives is apportioned by population. The Senate provides an equal voice to each state. What could be fairer?

Most Democrats I’ve asked favor electing a president by direct vote of the people. It would generally work to the advantage of their candidate since the major metropolitan areas are overwhelmingly Democrat and they could focus their efforts on those areas. Most Republicans favor the present system. Their party’s core strength lies in America’s vast rural areas.

Like the system or not, changing it is easier said than done. The founders clearly did not intend that voters elect a president directly. The unit rule which commits all of a state’s electors to the candidate that wins the most votes in that state is in effect in all states except Maine and Nebraska which award an electoral vote to the winner in each of its congressional districts. The House once voted to abolish the electoral college but, not surprisingly, it was dead on arrival in the Senate. Even if it survived the Congress, a constitutional amendment abolishing the electoral college would never obtain the approval of a requisite number of states. CRO

copyright 2004 J. F. Kelly, Jr.

§