Time For Reform? Considering The Failures Of The Electoral College Essay, Research Paper
Time For Reform? Considering The Failures of The Electoral College
Description: This paper discusses the many shortcomings of the Electoral College,
and posits possible alternative electoral processes which likely be more
democratic.
Time for Reform? Considering the failures of the Electoral College
A common misconception among American is that when they vote they elect the
President. The truth is not nearly this simple. What in fact happens when a
person votes is that there vote goes for an Elector. This Elector (who is
selected by the respective state in which a vote is cast) casts ballots for two
individuals, the President and the Vice-President. Each state has the same
number of electors as there are Senate and House of Representative members for
that State. When the voting has stopped the candidate who receives the majority
of the Electoral votes for a state receives all the electoral votes for that
state. All the votes are transmitted to Washington, D.C. for tallying, and the
candidate with the majority of the electoral votes wins the presidency. If no
candidate receives a majority of the vote, the responsibility of selecting the
next President falls upon the House of Representatives. This elaborate system of
Presidential selection is thought by many to be an 18th century anachronism
(Hoxie p. 717), what it is in fact is the product of a 200 year old debate over
who should select the President and why.
In 1787, the Framers in their infinite wisdom, saw the need to respect the
principles of both Federalists and States Righters (republicans) (Hoxie p. 717).
Summarily a compromise was struck between those who felt Congress should select
the President and those who felt the states should have a say. In 1788 the
Electoral College was indoctrinated and placed into operation. The College was
to allow people a say in who lead them, but was also to protect against the
general public’s ignorance of politics. Why the fear of the peoples ignorance of
politics? It was argued that the people, left to their own devices could be
swayed by a few designing men to elect a king or demagogue (McManus p. 19). With
the Electoral College in place the people could make a screened decision about
who the highest authority in the land was to be (Bailey & Shafritz (p. 60); at
the same time the fear of the newly formed nation being destroyed by a demagogue
could be put to rest because wiser men had the final say.
200 years later the system is still designed to safeguard against the ignorant
capacities of the people. The Electoral College has remained relatively
unchanged in form and function since 1787, the year of its formulation. This in
itself poses a problem because in 200 years the stakes have changed yet the
College has remained the same. A safeguard against a demagogue may still be
relevant, but the College as this safeguard has proved flawed in other
capacities. These flaws have shed light on the many paths to undemocratic
election. The question then is what shall the priorities be? Shall the flaws be
addressed or are they acceptable foibles of a system that has effectively
prevented the rise of a king for 200 years? To answer this question we must
first consider a number of events past and possible that have or could have
occurred as a result of the flaws Electoral College.
The Unfaithful Elector
Under the current processes of the Electoral College, when a member of the
general electorate casts a vote for a candidate he is in fact casting a vote for
an Electoral College member who is an elector for that candidate. Bound only by
tradition this College member is expected to remain faithful to the candidate he
has initially agreed to elect. This has not always happened. In past instances
Electoral College member have proved to be unfaithful. This unfaithful elector
ignores the will of the general electorate and instead selects candidate other
than the one he was expected to elect (McGaughey, p. 81). This unfaithfulness
summarily subjugates all the votes for a candidate in a particular district. In
all fairness it is important to note that instances of unfaithful electors are
few and far between, and in fact 26 states have laws preventing against
unfaithful electors (McGauhey, p.81). Despite this the fact remains that the
possibility of an unfaithful elector does exist and it exists because the system
is designed to circumvent around direct popular election of the President.
The Numbers Flaw
The unfaithful elector is an example of how the popular will can be purposely
ignored. The Numbers Flaw reveals how the will of the people can be passed over
unintentionally due to flaw of design (McNown, Lecture Notes, 2/20/93).
(a)6/b(4) | (a)6/b(6) Candidate a: 18
| Candidate b: 22
|
| Electoral Votes
(a)6/b(4) | (a)0/b(10) Candidate a: 3
| Candidate b: 1
In this theoretical example candidate (a) receives a minority of the popular
votes with 18, but a majority of the electoral votes with three. Candidate (b)
receives a majority of the popular votes with 22, but receives only one
electoral vote. Under the winner-take-all system, the candidate with the
majority of the electoral votes not only wins the state but also receives all
the electoral votes for that state. In this hypothetical situation candidate (a)
receiving a minority of the popular votes wins the state and takes all the
electoral votes. The acceptability of this denial of the popular will,
unintentional or otherwise, is questionable to say the least.
Tie Game
The problem posed by no one person receiving a majority of the electoral votes
(a tie) first came to head in the 1800 elections. The success of political
parties served to turn Electoral College members into agents of the parties
Bailey & Shafritz p. 61). This so galvanized the 1800 elections that the
Republican electors cast their two votes for the two Republican candid
Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr respectively. It was assumed that Jefferson
would be President and Burr the Vice-President. Unfortunately their was no
constitutional doctrine to affirm this assumption. As a result the ever
audacious Aaron Burr challenged Jefferson election as President and the issue
had to be sent to the House for resolution (Bailey & Shafritz, p. 61). Any
debating on the issue was only incidental; when all was said and done the issue
was decided by one man, Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton, and the Federalists were
in control of the House when the decision was to be made. Hamilton, who
disagreed with Jefferson but overwhelmingly distrusted Burr, orchestrated a
blank ballot initiative among the Federalists which allowed the Republicans to
select Jefferson as President (Bailey & Shafritz, p. 61). Though this entire
incident was significant the most noteworthy aspect was the fact that the
President was essentially chosen by one man. The final decision was taken
entirely out of the hands of the people and was left to the mercy of the biases
of a single individual. In all fairness it should be noted that the 12th
amendment was formulated out of the Jefferson-Burr to forever lay to rest the
question of who is President and Vice-President in a tie. The 12th amendment
stipulates that electors are to cast separate votes for the President and Vice
President, and summarily an event such as the Jefferson-Burr incident cannot
happen again. (Bailey & Shafritz p. 61). In effect the 12th prevents the issue
of a tie from going to the House under a very narrow scope of conditions. This
is far less of a solution than one which would have prevented this issue from
going to the House at all because when the issue of who would be President went
to the House in 1800, the issue of democracy was left to compromise. This all
serves to reveal yet another flaw of the Electoral College process.
Congressional selection of the President can lead to democratic compromise. This
would seem an area of concern. Though some would argue we have had 200 years to
distance ourselves from such maladies as the elections of 1800, the following
reveals how close to home the flaws 200 year old institution can hit.
The Wallace Debacle
In 1968 a three-way tie nearly brought to head the same undemocratic modes of
presidential selections that emerged 200 years earlier with the Jefferson-Burr
incident. The 1968 elections race was extremely close. Richard Nixon barley
received a majority of the electoral votes to win the presidency. Had Nixon
failed to get a majority a number of bizarre scenarios might have emerged. The
candidates in the race were Richard Nixon, Hubert Humphrey and George Wallace
respectively. Had Nixon failed to win a majority Wallace would have been in a
position to control who the next President would be (Bailey & Shafritz p. 65).
Though he could not have won himself Wallace could have used his votes as swing
votes to give Nixon a majority, or give Humphrey enough to prevent Nixon from
getting a majority (Bailey & Shafritz p. 65). In the latter instance the issue
would have, as in 1800, been sent to the House for rectification. In either
instance Wallace would have had a great deal to gain, and the temptation to
wheel and deal (at the compromise of democracy) would have been great indeed. It
is possible Wallace could have used his influence with Southern House members to
get Humphrey elected. In the process he would have likely `garnered great
political clout for himself. Wallace could have bargained with Nixon for an
administration position in Nixon’s cabinet in return for Wallace’s electoral
votes. The possible scenarios are endless, and for the most part irrelevant.
What is relevant is that the processes of the Electoral College again paved a
path for democratic compromise, just as it did in 1800. If time is the mechanism
for change then apparently not enough time has passed.
Conclusion
The shortcomings of the Electoral College presented above are only a few of many
flaws. Others flaws include the bias toward small and large states, which gives
these states a disproportionate advantage; The bias toward those who live in
urban areas and therefore enjoy a stronger vote than those living in sparsely
populated areas (Bailey & Shafritz p. 63). The list of flaws is extensive. The
question that still remains is whether or not the flaws are extensive enough to
warrant change? The Electoral College has successfully provided the U.S. with
its Presidents for 200 years and has done so without allowing the ascension of a
demagogue. But in the process of 200 years of electing the College has allowed
the will of the people to be compromised. Granted at the time of the 1800
elections the College was young and its shortcomings were not entirely clear.
200 years later the flaws have revealed themselves or have been revealed in
various fashion. The question remains then are flaws acceptable considering the
duty the College performs? If the purpose of the College is to provide democracy
but prevent demagoguery then its success seems uncertain. The U.S. has seen no
demagogue but has seen compromise of democracy. The evidence shows that the
flaws of the Electoral College are responsible for democratic compromise. It
would seem then that the flaws of the college are self-defeating to the purpose
of the college. If this is then it is definitely time for reform.
Bibliography
1 Bailey, Harry A. Jr., Shafritz, Jay M. The American Presidency, (California:
Brooks/Cole Publishing Co., 1988) Chapter III
2 McGauhey, Elizabeth P., “Democracy at Risk,” Policy Review, Winter 1993: 79-81
3 R. Gordon Hoxie, “Alexander Hamilton and the Electoral System Revisited,”
Presidential Studies Quarterly, v. 18 n. 4 p. 717-720
4 John F. McManus, “Let the Constitution Work,” The New American, v. 8 n. 14 p.
19
5 William P. Hoar, “The Electoral College: How The Republic Chooses its
President,” New American, v. 8 n. 16 p. 23-28