No

by Tom Koecke

Created on: December 30, 2007

This is always a tough sell because of the sheer number of people who will vote that the electoral college should be eliminated. If the arguments encountered in this debate are typical arguments presented in other debates I have had on this topic, the arguments will include (1) the US was founded as a democracy, (2) the Electoral College did not exist prior to 1804, and (3) modern technology does away with the need for the Electoral College. Each of these arguments is incorrect, and the numbers of people who buy into these falsehoods is the greatest argument for retaining the Electoral College.

Though it sounds nice to say the US was founded on the principle of democracy, it was actually formed as a representative republic. The intentions of the founding fathers were to limit the control the federal government has on the states. The founding fathers recognized that the interests varied from state to state. They put forth that ideal in the formation of Congress, in which each state is granted two Senators and a varying number of Representatives based on population. The argument that the country was founded as a democracy is further eroded by the fact that population, for the purposes of representation in Congress, included calculating slaves as worth three-fifths of a natural person. While some historical facts about the US include racist and misogynist elements, those have been corrected with regard to representation in the federal government. The point is not to defend those ethics as valid, but rather to prove that the US was established as a representative republic and not a democracy.

The argument that the Electoral College was created through the twelfth amendment to the Constitution is also incorrect. The amendment in 1804 served to allow the Executive to select a Vice President running mate. The amendment changed Article II of the Constitution that declared the candidate with the second most electoral votes as the Vice President. This resulted in odd combinations in the Executive Branch of government in that John Adams, the man who would be king, served as Vice President for George Washington, who rejected the offer to become king. Jefferson, who was politically opposed to John Adams, served as his Vice President. Though the government worked through those administrations, the next Vice President, Aaron Burr, who killed the first Secretary of the Treasury in a duel, proved the need for those in the Executive Branch to work in concert with the Executive rather than opposed to the President. Jefferson served his second term with a Vice President not so reckless and power hungry as Aaron Burr. The point, however, is that the contention that the Electoral College exists because of the twelfth amendment is incorrect.

The argument that technology does away with the need for the Electoral College disregards the reason the Electoral College was deemed necessary. That notwithstanding, anyone who watched the votes sway in Florida in 2000 because of technological flaws, or has had his or her identity stolen, should understand that technology is not foolproof. It is a popular argument, but it is unsound in both its reasoning and concept.

I would contend that many of the people who argue against the Electoral College were disgruntled by the election in 2000. However, that was not the first time a President was elected without receiving a majority of votes. Thomas Jefferson had fewer than half the electoral votes in 1800, tying the 99 Aaron Burr received. John Quincy Adams, Rutherford B. Hayes, and Benjamin Harrison, however, became Presidents despite having fewer votes than candidates they defeated. The elections of John Quincy Adams and Rutherford B. Hayes were far more controversial than the election of 2000, which was more in line with the controversial election of Benjamin Harrison. John Quincy Adams lost resoundingly to Andrew Jackson, but manipulated the Electoral College vote by promising a Cabinet position to the third place finisher. Together, they had more than one-half the electoral votes, though Jackson had the most. Rutherford B. Hayes' election in 1876 is, by far, the most controversial in American history. Not only did he lose the popular election to Samuel Tilden, who failed to get more than one-half the electoral votes, the process to elect the President through the House of Representatives in such circumstances was also circumvented. The Republican was elected by a committee of five, which was comprised of three Republicans and two Democrats. The elections of Benjamin Harrison in 1888 and George Bush in 2000 were the result of majority votes in the Electoral College, despite receiving fewer votes than another candidate.

The concept of democracy is not "he with the most votes wins;" it is "majority rules." To contend that the problem with the Electoral College giving us two Presidents who lost the popular vote, discounts that it also has given us Presidents who would not have won "popular majority" without it. Eliminating Hayes, Harrison, and Bush as Presidents who did not get the most votes, James Garfield, Grover Cleveland (twice), Woodrow Wilson (first term), Harry Truman, Richard Nixon (first term), and Bill Clinton (first term) were elected despite receiving fewer than one-half the popular votes cast in elections since 1872. Since no candidates in those elections received more than one-half the popular votes, how would "a majority" be determined? Technology does not resolve that problem; the Electoral College does.

Finally, among the many things the cities of New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago likely have in common, is that those three cities have more population than twenty states. Combined, those three cities have more population than the fourth most populous state (Florida), and Texas is the only state that has more population than those three cities except for New York and California (Illinois is the fifth most populated state, despite that Chicago is the third most populated city). To shift the process for electing the President to popular vote rather than leaving it in the Electoral College would be the same as the federal government only representing the interests of urban America.

The Electoral College is certainly not a perfect system. It is, however, the best system to make sure that America remains a representative republic by giving rural America representation in Presidential elections.

*

Sources:

History of the Electoral College: http://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_history.php
The Original US Constitution: http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/constitution/text.html
The Twelfth Amendment: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment12/
Population by States: http://www.demographia.com/db-2000stater.htm
Population by Cities: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763098.html
Results of Presidential Elections: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781450.html
The Election of John Quincy Adams in 1824: http://www.presidentprofiles.com/Washington-Johnson/Adams-John-Quincy.html
The Election of Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876: http://www.presidentprofiles.com/Grant-Eisenhower/Hayes-Rutherford-B.html

Learn more about this author, Tom Koecke.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.