The Americanism of the Electoral College
There’s something particularly ironic about a presidential candidate standing in the rural state of Mississippi and calling for abolishment of the Electoral College. Yet, that’s exactly what Senator Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., did on the campaign trail. She’s not alone. Other major Democratic candidates have piled on so that it is now a major talking point for the Left. Amid all of the noise, they have lost what used to be celebrated: diversity.
Indeed, if the Electoral College could be summed up in one word it is undoubtedly diversity. The founders recognized early on that our nation was made up of varied regions and that in a simple majority vote less populated states would lose all voice. While some of the framers championed direct democracy, others feared a world in which 51 percent could crush the other 49 percent. James Madison brilliantly sketched out the Electoral College as a compromise. Currently, each state gets a number of electors that is identical to its number of representatives and senators in Congress. The District of Columbia gets three electors. The institution survives on its original premise: a presidential candidate must win in diverse parts of the country, not just pockets of it.
To date, there have been a handful of occasions in which the loser of the popular vote went on to win the Electoral College. This can occur when the victor wins by small margins in the required configuration of states while the loser wins by large margins in the remaining states. However, none of these cases show any discrepancy in the institution itself. The most recent were George W. Bush and Donald Trump. Anyone can look at the maps for the 2000 and 2016 elections to see that both Bush and Trump won a much more diverse part of the country than their challengers.
Perhaps this is another redeeming value of the Electoral College. The institution really swings into action when the country is politically divided; ensuring that a winning candidate cannot just campaign in more densely populated areas. Instead, they must prove an ability to get votes in varied regions. In the election of 1860, Abraham Lincoln lost the popular vote. But he won the Electoral College by taking nearly all the Northern states as well as California and Oregon on the West Coast. The electoral system played in his favor. Arguably, pro-slavery politicians could do the math and it may have played a role in their decision to just quit the entire nation.
Still, calls to eliminate the electoral system continue from time to time and the upcoming presidential election has only become a platform for this reckless idea. Recently, Colorado joined about eleven other states with legislation that would allocate all of their electoral votes to whoever wins the national popular vote. Such legislation would only take effect if the law is passed by states carrying at least 270 electoral votes. Nonetheless, they have joined in a political suicide pact. No presidential candidate would ever have to set foot in many of these areas if there was a one-person, one-vote system. Of course, some adjustments to the institution may be helpful and would not require a constitutional amendment. For example, while virtually every state allocates its electors on a winner-take-all basis, Maine and Nebraska assigns one to each congressional district and two for the statewide winner. Such a tweak still preserves the inherent value of the Electoral College and makes it even more proportional.
But let there be no mistake about it. If the talking points ever gain traction and opponents of the Electoral College get their way, American representative democracy will be dumped in favor of the one-person, one-vote principle. All but a handful of states will feel left out and this could divide the country more than ever.
In The News
VANCOUVER, British Columbia -- At the conclusion of the annual Group of Seven summit in Biarritz, France, U.S. President Donald Trump emerged on the world stage for a joint press conference with the summit host, French President Emmanuel Macron. It was arguably the best performance of... Read More
How cruel is America willing to be to other people's children? We're about to find out. Are you OK with allowing your tax dollars to fund detention centers where Central American children will be locked up indefinitely, simply because the Trump administration claims that it can't... Read More
You have to hand it to Ken Cuccinelli. As President Donald Trump's wingman on immigration, in a scant few days he managed a trifecta of arrogance, ignorance and hubris. It was a performance one can only call Trumpian. Cuccinelli, the acting director of U.S. Citizenship and... Read More
Nearly each day reports chronicle the catastrophic ramifications of climate change, as well as the effects of poverty and hunger on growing children. The National Institutes of Health just released a study explaining that eating an unprocessed diet triggers an individual’s body to produce an appetite-suppressing... Read More
Few jobs in politics might be tougher than to be a moderate member of Congress. Moderates typically hail from competitive districts, which means they enter office with targets on their backs from an opposition eager to wrest away their seats. And unlike their colleagues in safely... Read More
Persons of faith from around the world are suffering, yet again. The world had not yet healed from the attacks in New Zealand, when the devastating Easter Sunday suicide bombings took place in Sri Lanka. Then, just a week later, there was another hate-fueled attack –... Read More