Reform as a Possible Solution to Concerns of an Anti-Democratic Electoral College: A Critical
Analysis of Edward’s Why the Electoral College Is Bad for America
Maggie Davis
POLS 4610
Carrie Parker Eaves
February 4, 2013
George C. Edwards III, in Why the Electoral College Is Bad for America, argues against
the use of the Electoral College as a method for choosing the president. Edwards employs
arguments ranging from those grounded in empirical analysis to broad definitions of democracy
that exclude the design of the Electoral College. Edwards has specific concern for the
unpredictability of the Electoral College in representing the popular will, but virtually every
component of the process is criticized by Edwards in chapters divided by issues; he provides a
thorough investigation through examples of election years that distinctly apply to each given
contention. Visuals fill the pages to supply historical data displaying the method’s
ineffectiveness. Although Edwards presents strong arguments for the sole use of the popular
vote in electing presidents, a total elimination of the Electoral College would require the
most severe amendment to the Constitution in history and could lead to further collective
dilemma issues not examined in the text.
The evidence that Edwards provides is comprehensive but overwhelming in the sense that
his stance often comes off as too radical - he concludes that the solution to each issue is
dismantling the Electoral College as an institution. In my opinion, a few arguments against the
Electoral College, however, do prove to be strong. First, Edwards dissects the role of the
Electoral College in promoting a politically equal environment. He argues that each vote does
not count uniformly because of the variation in large and small states and given representations.
Second, he contends that each state has inconsistent influence in selecting the president because
of the structure of the Electoral College and its creation of “swing states.” These arguments
prove that there is disparity in which states get the most representation in selecting the president.
Along with the disparity in each state’s influence, Edwards argues that the winner-take-all
system, the two electoral votes allotted to state Senators, the skewed relationship between the
number of people who vote in a state because of relative influence, and the size of the House
generate gaps between the popular vote and electoral votes. Other issues, such as the possibility
of electors using their own free will, are clear violations of a democratic system. However, many
of his arguments depend on similar premises.
One of the major flaws in Edwards’s argument involves his rigid definition of
“democracy.” Under his terms, “democracy” is solely a system that promotes “political
equality.” However, this is not a defining quality of a democracy; it is merely a possible
characteristic of one. If democracy is not necessarily determined by “political equality,” the
basis of Edwards’s argument is flawed because there is a world where the Electoral College
functions under a “democratic” system. In chapter three, Edwards uses arguments from Robert
Dahl, Jon Elster, and James S. Fishkin to make the point that “political equality” is a
precondition for democracy. His focus comes from Dahl’s statement in On Democracy that a
democracy is characterized by one where “members are to be considered politically equal”
(Edwards 2011, 38). Dahl defends political equality but further mentions ten other criteria for a
democracy that the United States meets, such as “prevent[ing] cruel and vicious rule,
guarantee[ing] citizens certain fundamental rights that undemocratic systems cannot grant,…
giv[ing] them the opportunity to exercise moral responsibility, … [and] foster[ing] a relatively
high degree of political equality” (Ringen 2008, 284). According to Dahl in the text quoted by
Edwards, political equality is not a necessary precondition, but a “relatively high degree” of
political equality that may be a characteristic of a true democracy. Given all of Edwards’s
arguments, the Electoral College may cause instances of inequality, but compared to other
modern governments, it does maintain a “relatively high degree of political equality”. Fishkin
and Elster’s arguments are not as fully developed in the text but both arguments are based on the
same premise and do not exclude the possibility of the United States being the best possible
version of a modern democracy. The United States created the essential ideas of modern
democracy and therefore any definitions contrary to the design of the founders may not be a
dependable one at all.
Edwards is legitimate to argue that the founders had more than a few ideas wrong about
political equality due to the social conditions of the time. Edwards refers to the amendments
created to allow equal voting rights among races and sexes; this is used as an argument for the
justification of an amendment abolishing the Electoral College to promote political
equality. Amendments have not drastically changed the structure of the founders’ wishes. None
have changed the founders’ original rules of functioning intended to prevent tyrannical
government– all have clarified Constitutional statements or established new laws to better
political conditions. Abolishing the Electoral College by amendment could open the floodgate to
future amendments changing the structure of government completely. Because the Electoral
College is a framework for selection, statements of the Constitution regarding selection of
Senators and Representatives as well as appointments could theoretically be justifiably amended.
The original intentions of the founders for the functioning of the government should not be
abolished. The reasoning behind the Electoral College, as mentioned by Edwards in his chapter
on “The Origins of the Electoral College,” was to have distance between the people, the
president, and the possibility tyrannical or foreign influence. Although in its application today
the idea may not be the most equalizing process, the founders had proper intention in their
design; that design should be respected as traditional functioning of the country and should at
most be reformed.
I believe that alternatives do exist that would simply reform the institution and remain
true to Constitutional intentions. Such an alternative is mentioned by Edwards, but the feasibility
is not examined in terms of its potential to serve his definition of “political equality”. In Chapter
5, which describes the origins of the Electoral College, Edwards briefly mentions the district
voting idea presented by Wilson, wherein each state would be divided into districts and electors
would vote based on the popular vote in their district. Edwards’s issue with the district plan lies
in how “there would inevitably be distortions in the campaign” and how it would do little to
“encourage electoral turnout,” but any system would fall victim to these shortcomings as it is
inevitable in party competition (Edwards 2011, 196). This alterative, though, would not
fundamentally alter the structure of the Constitution, as it still allows “Each State [to] appoint…
a Number of Electors,” but it would mitigate many of the unappealing features of our current
electoral system. In addition, a reform to abolish free will among the electors would prevent
them from countering popular will and electors would become mere voices of the people. In
what the Electoral College represents now, I do not believe that the founders would agree
entirely with its operation. The structure of the system does not necessarily represent everyone
equally in the modern world. The founders would prefer a method of selection such as districts
in order to avoid certain groups of individuals gaining power or being subject to too many
outside influences.
Collective dilemmas in government functioning as well as popular will are inevitable. If
a shift away from the Electoral College began, other issues in direct population vote would
surely emerge. The fear of the founders could very well become reality in that organized groups
would attempt to become powerful and influence votes. The Electoral College creates these
divisions by giving some states more influence but an elimination of the institution does not
mean that factions would cease to seek prominence in presidential elections. Therefore, any
changes to the Constitution should remain true to original Constitutional intentions to maintain
Constitutional integrity in an attempt to keep amendment justifications to a minimum; an
amendment dealing with Electoral College clarification or reform would be appropriate and
solve many of the issues Edwards discusses.
References
Edwards, George C. III. 2011. Why the Electoral College Is Bad for America. 2nd ed. New
Haven and London: Yale University Press.
Ringen, Stein. 2008. "Robert A. Dahl: Defender of Democracy." Spring Science & Business
Media, LLC. 25 March.