182
VOLUME 82, NUMBERS 3 & 4
'8 u s e §§ 1402-07,
"US, Census Bureau, "Resident Population ofthe 50 States, the District of Columbia
and Puerto Rico: Census 2000," December 28, 2000, http://www,census,gov/popula
tion/cen2000/tab02,pdf (accessed May 6, 2007), 1,
'Michael D, Ramsey, "The Textual Basis of the President's Foreign Affairs Power,"
Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 30 (Fall 2006):141,
'For details on run-off/preference voting, see http://www,instantrunoff,com/how/
instructions,php,
'For details on approval-based voting, see http://www,approvalvoting,org.
COUNTERPOINT: PRESERVING THE
ELECTORAL COLLEGE
By MARIA LYNN McCOLLESTER
Imagine it is 1787, You are a delegate at the Constitutional Convention representing one
of the original thirteen states. You have been charged with solving the multitude of problems facing the young nation by revising the Articles of Confederation, Soon, however,
you and your co-delegates realize that this is more than just a revision exercise; you are
creating a new method of governing. During these debates, the Electoral College was
devised as a method for electing the president. It is an institution that has survived as a
part ofthe American democratic process but its relevancy to current political realities has
been questioned time and again. Many critics believe that this system is outdated and
needs to be replaced with a more direct process of selecting the nation's chief executive.
Because it is difficult to know the ramifications of such change, one must first consider
how the Electoral College came about and how it actually functions today. Once these two
points are understood, the need for the Electoral College will become evident because of
its ability to maintain the system of checks and balances in American govemment, preserve the two-party system, and require a national president. These three aspects of
America's political structure are protected by the Electoral College and each is essential
for the continued stability of America's governance.
The Electoral College was established in Article Two ofthe US, Constitution, The issue
of how to choose the nation's chief executive was debated during the first two months of
the Constitutional Convention, As Gary Gregg, Jr,, director ofthe McConnell Center for
Political Leadership at the University of Louisville, observes, "[a]s was the case with the
entire constitutional order they designed, [the delegates] had to create a balanced approach
that was at once innovative in its application and prescriptive in its design,'" Prior to their
deliberations conceming the executive, which included debate over length of term and
whether it would be a permanent or rotating position, the delegates at the Constitutional
Convention wrestled with a vexing problem of creating a bicameral legislature. Having
just concluded the "Great Compromise," which determined that membership in the House
would be based on population and that in the Senate by an equal number of seats per state.
INTERNATIONAL SOCIAL SCIENCE REVIEW
183
the delegates had no desire to repeat that debate over the selection of the executive. They
knew, however, that selection of the president would conjure up many of the same issues
they had just resolved. To avoid repetition of the same traumatizing debates, they searched
for a quick and balanced solution that would be beneficial to everyone. They saw the election of the executive as an extremely important part of their new nation and therefore
could not let it become a divisive issue. For these delegates, this process could become a
way to strengthen the system of checks and balances in the newly formed government.'
The delegates first addressed whether the president would be elected by a legislative
body or an outside force (i.e., the electorate). Although many feared the opinion of an uneducated populace, convention delegates believed overwhelmingly that having an executive
dependent upon the legislature would make the president a figurehead controlled by
Congress. They did not fear the direct election of the president by the people, but sought
a better system of selection that would promote a "coalesance of a popular majority, or as
close to it as possible, behind one presidential candidate.'" With this in mind, the
Committee of Eleven chosen to study the matter suggested the idea of having electors
from each state responsible for the selection of the president. The delegates then determined that the executive would be chosen by the states, with each state's total number of
electors equal to its number of representatives in Congress, thus sustaining a balance of
power between large and small states. In case of a tie in the electoral vote or the failure of
any candidate to receive an absolute majority of that vote, the House of Representatives
would determine the winner through a one-vote-per-state process. This was designed to
protect the executive from possibly being chosen by an overwhelmingly small portion of
the Senate, as had first been proposed." Originally, the House of Representatives would
choose the president and vice president from among the top five candidates, but following ratification of the Twelfth Amendment (1804), with the separation of ballots for both
positions, the president would be chosen from among the top three.' Convention delegates
thus devised the most fair and balanced method to meet the challenge of electing an executive with minimum disruption and argument.
Aside from understanding the origins of the Electoral College, it is also important to
understand the basics of the system in order to grasp its value. The first step in the process
is the popular nationwide election. From this, electors are chosen from each state to represent the overall state outcome of that election. These electors are customarily chosen by
each political party and are seen as honorary designees of the state party system. Though
technically free to vote for whomever they wish, they are obligated to vote for the candidate receiving the most votes in their state's general election. There have only been three
states where there was or is not a winner-take-all provision for electoral votes, yet they
have never altered the outcome of any presidential contest.' Once the electors cast their
ballots, the votes form an official tally which the state verifies. This tally is then sent to
the Senate where all of the votes are counted.' The candidate with an absolute majority in
the Electoral College wins the presidency, allowing for a true representation of the public's choice.
There are three key reasons to support the continuation of the Electoral College. First,
the Electoral College allows for the continuation of "balanced federalism." The United
States takes pride in its governing institutions. Its values are seen in every aspect of the
Constitution, with its system of checks and balances among the most prominent. The
desire of Americans to maintain a balanced government, where no one source of power
reigns above any other, calls for such systems as the bicameral legislature and the
184
VOLUME 82, NUMBERS 3 & 4
Electoral College," Without them, the United States govemment would not be federalist in
nature, which ",,,allows distinctive and individual communities to join together for a
greater good without losing their essential distinctiveness and individuality,'" In other
words, abolishing the Electoral College would remove one key aspect ofthe free and balanced nature of American govemment.
Second, the elimination of the Electoral College would destroy the two-party system
that has evolved from it. That political system may not have been the intention of the
Founding Fathers, but it is a consequence of the Electoral College, reflecting the
Constitution in nature. The two-party system acts as a balance in the presidential election
process that parallels those found within the Electoral College itself (the people and the
Electoral College vote) as well as the nature ofthe American federal government, such as
the two-house legislature,'" While many would believe the introduction of multiple parties
would be a good outcome of Electoral College reform, others would argue that the twoparty system has given the United States ",,, a political stability unrivaled in most democracies,"" This statement may seem ironic in a country currently in the grips of such intense
political partisanship, but it is difficult to believe that the alternative would be any better.
Historically, multi-party systems have divided nations, destabilizing them beyond the
point of having a functioning and successfril govemment. One such example is Weimar
Germany which had so many parties that no one could win a majority, causing each party
to abandon established forms of government and develop its own, thus destroying the
cohesiveness ofthe nation.
Even without this historical reference, the idea of a multi-party system in the United
States does not evoke comforting possibilities. Imagine a nation with more than two major
parties. The ability for any person to run under any party or platform may appear enticing.
Under such a system, single-issue interest groups could raise enough money and votes to
get their candidates into office. This might also produce a situation where voters in a single state are able to elect a very popular governor to the White House simply because of
its large population and financial resources. Not only would there be a greater number of
candidates, it also would become more difficult to determine who has won a majority of
the vote. The winning candidate could receive an extremely small percentage ofthe total
vote, hardly representative of a majority of the populace. Furthermore, the danger and
likelihood of constant recounts in presidential elections would become almost inevitable
because a popular vote system would have no mechanism to guarantee that the winner of
an election had received a majority ofthe vote, as the Electoral College does. Moreover,
since the Electoral College is based on a state-by-state vote, recounts would not make
nearly as much of a difference as they would in a popular vote election, A popular vote
election process could mean contested elections every four years, which would demean
and tear apart the American democratic system of government,"
Third, though many might argue that the Electoral College is outdated and that the
Founding Fathers could never have imagined the expansive nature ofthe United States, it
has survived and thrived since 1787, adapting to the ever changing physical and political
landscapes of the United States, With its aim of selecting a "national president," the
Electoral College is designed to require that a candidate campaign and appeal to the entire
nation, not just one faction or region. As political scientist Michael Uhlmann points out,
"No candidate can win without a broad national coalition, assembled state by state yet
compelled to transcend narrow geographic, economic, and social interests,"" By eliminating the Electoral College, this could easily change, A candidate would no longer be
INTERNATIONAL SOCIAL SCIENCE REVIEW
185
required to seek support throughout the country. Candidates would simply have to get
enough votes in enough similar regions to acquire a majority. This could be accomplished
by focusing only on the most populous areas of the nation. A candidate could then completely ignore the needs of less populated regions entirely. This would mean even less
power and a weaker voice for some minority groups - including racial and religious
minorities in rural populations and small states. The Electoral College therefore does not
diminish the equality of people's votes; instead, it provides safeguards against candidates
only catering to the numbers.'" One can argue that the same states seem to always be either
"red" or "blue," and thus the candidates are not catering to the entire nation anyway. Yet,
the Electoral College at least encourages candidates to look beyond those states that their
party traditionally wins and attempt to switch the "color" of those states every election
year. Should they not do so, it could cost them dearly." Without a national process for
electing presidents such as the Electoral College, the voice of the "little person" will simply vanish from the process.
The Electoral College has endured much criticism over the years. Critics have offered
scathing depictions of the system, arguing, in general, that "the American way of electing
presidents is antiquated, impractical and dangerous."" They do not understand the simplicity of the Electoral College and the protection that it provides against the domination
of government by one source of power. It is understandable why some would believe popular election to be the necessary system for so democratic a nation. Though it may not be
direct, the Electoral College best protects the principles of the entire citizenry of the country. No system of electing a president will ever be perfect, but the Electoral College has
protections for all people, from all backgrounds, which is more important than the appearance of a direct popular election. Without the Electoral College, the United States will
become a less federalist nation, the two-party system would collapse, and there would no
longer be any requirement for a national president. In its Constitution, the United States
embraces the concepts of freedom, liberty, and justice. The Electoral College is just one
manifestation of those values, but it is a crucial one that deserves our continued support.
ENDNOTES
'Gary L. Gregg, Jr., "The Origins and Meaning of the Electoral College," in Securing
Democracy: Why We Have the Electoral College, ed. Gary L. Gregg, Jr. (Wilmington, DEISI Books, 2001), 3.
'Robert M. Hardaway, The Electoral College and the Constitution: The Case for
Preserving Federalism (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1994), 78-80.
'Gary Glenn, "The Electoral College and the Development of American Democracy,"
Perspectives on Political Science 32 (Winter 2003):6.
"Lawrence D. Langley and Neal R. Peirce, The Electoral College Primer (New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press, 1996), 17-19.
'George Grant, The Importance of the Electoral College (San Antonio, TX: Vision
Forum Ministries, 2004), 29.
The three instances in which states have not or do not use the winner-take-all procedure have not affected the overall outcome of any national election. In 1892, Michigan
Democrats attempted to take some of that state's electoral votes for the party by changing
to a district plan in which electoral votes were given out by electoral districts. While they
succeeded in taking five electoral votes from the Republicans, these votes did not affect
186
VOLUME 82, NUMBERS 3 & 4
the overall outcome of the election, in which Democrat Grover Cleveland defeated
Republican Benjamin Harrison in a rematch ofthe presidential election of 1888, Maine
and Nebraska have each reverted back to the same district method (1969 and 1972, respectively), but this has not affected the outcome of any presidential election, Langley and
Peirce, The Electoral College Primer, 99-100,
'Hardaway, The Electoral College and the Constitution, 39-54,
""The Case for the Electoral College," New York Times, December 19, 2000, A34,
'Grant, The Importance ofthe Electoral College, 15,
'"Michael M, Uhlmann, "The Old (Electoral) College Cheer," National Review,
November 8, 2004, 28,
"Robert F, Weinhagen, "Should the Electoral College be Abandoned?" American Bar
Association Journal 61 (July 1981):855,
"Paula Dwyer and Paul Magnusson, "The Pitfalls of One Person, One Vote," Business
Week, November 27, 2000, 48-49,
"Uhlmann, "The Old (Electoral) College Cheer," 28,
'"Glenn, "The Electoral College and the Development of American Democracy," 7,
"Paul A, Rahe, "Moderating the Political Pulse," in Securing Democracy, ed, Gregg,
Jr,, 63,
"E,J, Dionne, Jr,, "Bypassing the Electoral College," The Washington Post, April 2,
2007, A15,