Should the electoral college be abolished?

No

1 of 19

by Jeffry R Fisher

• 

Write now Print Invite a writer™ Add to Favorites RSS Feed Contact this writer

The Founders had more than one reason to establish "electors" between the people and the president. One reason, protecting small states, is oft cited but poorly understood in modern times. Another reason, protecting against mob rule, is often overlooked or cited only dismissively without close examination. A third reason, to answer to state governments (as opposed to Congress or the people) is virtually forgotten.

Unfortunately, these purposes have been undermined and obscured by state election laws such as popularity contests and winner-take-all. These laws have created problems of their own. Seeing problems but no purpose, many people are ready to junk the elector system rather than find causes and fix them.

That would be shortsighted. I suggest that the Founders' reasons have merit even today. However, even if one eventually rejects the value of small-state sovereignty, one could rebalance the electors without discarding them. Finally, for each complaint against presidential elections, look for a cause in states' election statutes before demanding an end to electors.

We should not junk a damaged institution when we could stop the damage. If you can see any value to any of its purposes, then you should not discard the electoral college.

Purpose #1, Small States:

The most commonly known purpose for having electors, which follows directly from states' equal representation in the Senate, is to respect the value of state sovereignty.

At the time those provisions were written, ratifying the US Constitution required 9 of 13 states, so state independence wasn't just a philosophical concern but a practical one.

It would be easy for us today to dismiss the value of state sovereignty as nothing more than that immediate concern, but that would be intellectually lazy. People didn't just have semi-autonomous states, they valued them. Indeed, the very name "state" implies nationhood - far, far more potent than the marionettes that we see today.

The states joined the union almost the way America joined the UN. Granted, the union has morphed since then, but might we have lost something in the process (other than slavery)?

There's something to be said for allowing 50 semi-sovereign entities to have 50 separate cultures. There's merit to the argument that even the least populous US state has at least as much right to go its own way, as any newly-minted Balkan country recognized by our state department.

Therefore, there's something to be said for granting each a measure of influence owing to its (potential) independence.

If you see an injustice there, then ask California's movers and shakers if they would allow its rural heart to secede, forming a new state of average population that would escape the rule of Cal's urban centers and send distinctly non-urban senators to DC.

If California's urbanites aren't open minded enough to allow that, then I can't sympathize with their complaints that they need more senate representation.

When I escaped California, I didn't leave because I disliked all of its communities, but because the state border itself had legal and tax consequences. I don't want California's population to overrule my decision to live beyond its jurisdiction.

Representation by identity (rather than population) in the Senate gives credence to states as entities, protecting low-population havens. Proportionate representation in the House recognizes population, protecting populous states from minority rule.

The president is a blending of the two. If I am ever truly dissatisfied with that, then I am free to move to a small state like New Hampshire.

Purpose #2, Mob Rule:

The original purpose that registers most with me is to insulate the office of the president from a lazy, ignorant and apathetic populace that is too easily swayed by demagoguery (fallacious emotional appeals).

We are arrogant if we imagine our modern society to have risen above our predecessors in this respect. We can see the principle today in how many political ads rely on emotion, and how so many voters are impressed thereby.

Adding a buffer layer between voters and the presidency allows us to express our collective wisdom in the form of electors who can then learn more than the average apathetic voter about person and policies of each presidential candidate.

Electors could stand for various political principles, just as modern political parties do, but (we hope) they'd be better able to "look under the hood" of any ambitious personalities.

Purpose #3, Serving States:

Serving states is subtly different from valuing separate cultures. It's more of a check and balance against the tendency to centralize power. If the president answers to state legislatures, then the president is less likely to support nationalization of various functions that the state governments can manage.

This is the same principle driving the repeal of the 17th amendment (popular election of senators). Even if the states are represented proportionate to their populations, the fact that state legislators (rather than the people) would select senators or presidential electors opposes centralization of power.

To the founders who feared tyranny, this was vital. To modern Americans who have no fear of tyranny, it won't be important at all... until it's too late.

Electoral Complaints:

Sadly, we haven't seen an indirect selection based on statesmanship since Monroe's second election. That's because states have passed laws to frustrate the Founders' purposes, making a mockery of the electoral college so that it now appears useless and antiquated, ready for the ash heap of history.

There's a whole litany of complaints about how the electors are useless, unnecessary and meaningless. Well, when a state passes a law saying that your constitutionally granted authority must obey the outcome of a popular election, how much discretion do you have left?

When all 50 states place party-nominated presidential candidates on their ballots rather than electors, how significant is an elector? When most states lock their electors into "winner take all" slates, what elector can campaign as a wise individual deserving your trust?

When presidential ballot access is granted according to political party prominence rather than by the person, how much value does a person have anymore?

When presidential candidates choose their electors long before any electors would choose a president, the system is certainly broken, but who broke it?

I suggest that the state laws surrounding the nomination of candidates, selection of electors and binding of electors are what have rendered the electors impotent and seemingly useless. Instead of throwing out the damaged institution, we should remember its purposes, see the causes of the damage, and reform the damaging laws.

Reform:

The Founders envisioned that we would choose politically savvy locals that we knew personally and supported ideologically. They in turn were supposed to put in the extraordinary effort to study the candidates personally or at least see through their bull to choose a good president. I think that would be a good thing. To get there again:

1) Don't allow states to bind electors to a particular candidate. Such restriction short circuits the buffer that the Constitution so wisely installed. One way to thwart such binding would be to require a secret ballot by electors. If nobody knows how any individual votes, then it becomes very difficult to punish an elector for open voting.

2) Don't allow candidates to select electors. There are several ways to do this, but one radical rule would be a constitutional amendment restricting electors to voting for other electors. Every elector would become a candidate, and every presidential hopeful would need to first prevail as an elector. Nobody would really know until after the election who the final candidates would be.

Ballots would need to feature electors themselves. Voters would really be forced to evaluate and choose their own favorite sons (and daughters), entrusting them to either be or select a good president. Best of all, each presidential hopeful would be at the mercy of those neighbors who know him/her best.

3) Use approval (or instant round-robin) voting at all stages. With approval voting for electors, the two party stranglehold on power would evaporate. With approval (or IRRV) voting among electors, there would always be a winner, so we could eliminate all the rules about sending the election to the House of Representatives.

Conclusion:

The "Electoral College" has been damaged by state laws specifically designed to undermine its original purposes. By reminding ourselves of those original purposes, we can see the value that electors should have. By learning about the laws that have undermined electors' constitutional authority, we can see where the real problems lie.

Let's not hastily discard the damaged institution. Instead, let's attack the real causes and restore the lost value. Repair the electoral college rather than destroying it.

Learn more about this author, Jeffry R Fisher.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.