The Presidential election is tomorrow. It'd certainly be best if we know the winner sooner rather than later. Today I think it's a good idea to review the operation of that election: the Electoral College. Quite a few people nowadays express a desire to scrap the system, but the reasons for its use are just as prevalent now as they were at its adoption in 1788.
Let's start at the beginning. Between the Declaration of Independence and ratification of the Constitution, the United States system of government was the Articles of Confederation. The loose connection of states saw each essentially function as their own little nation, down to fighting over borders and trade. Solely unifying them was the war at Britain. The ineffectual Continental Congress didn't have any real power and could only request money, soldiers and supplies. America had no king and wanted no king.
The problems with the Articles became apparent following the end of the war and many began pushing for a more powerful national government, at least to deal with disputes between states, national defense and international diplomacy. A constitutional convention was called in 1787, initially to only make alterations. One of the results, along with starting over entirely, was the inclusion of a chief executive in the new 'Federal' government. This would allow certain matters to be dealt with deftly by an individual instead of going through incessant bickering in Congress. George Washington was a major proponent of the high office following frustrations with the legislature during the war. But how to elect?
The first thought was election by Congress, which would create something akin to a prime minister. This didn't separate powers as the Framers wanted so they explored other options. There were at various times prominent supporters of using a national popular vote, like James Madison, the 'Father of the Constitution' and 4th President. Eventually they settled on a system where each state has its own little Presidential election, picking 'electors' pledged to candidates. The number of electors, a states 'electoral votes,' comes from the total of its Representatives (updates every 10 years) and Senators (always two). These electors make up the official Electoral College, assembling exclusively to elect the president every four years. The states determine how votes are pledged, though almost every state currently does winner-take-all. Originally most states awarded electors at a congressional district level and two states (Maine/Nebraska) use a similar system now. An absolute majority of electoral votes, today 270 of 538 (which includes the 3 from DC), is needed to become the President, with election by the House a backup plan. Why did they choose this?
We don't know all the deliberations, but we do have the justifications for and explanations of the Constitution provided by 'Publius' (a pseudonym) that appeared in contemporary papers during the 1787-88 ratification fight. These short works were later assembled in The Federalist Papers, and were written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. Since it was some of the same men who wrote these papers and created the Constitution itself, they are instrumental in understanding how our government works and have been referenced by our courts time and again. What do they say about the Electoral College?
Federalist 10 sets the groundwork and extolls the values of a republic while expressly warning against the dangers of pure direct democracy. A republic is a much more stable system. The founders were terrified of factions and mob rule where a motivated group, majority or minority, would take over the political landscape to the detriment of the people at large. Another concern was sectionalism, where certain regions would unite to overpower the will of the rest of the country. On some level these fears have been realized, but we should still fight to avoid these situations as possible and that was the aim of the complexity built into the Constitution. It's why we have separation of powers between the executive, legislative and judiciary branches. It's why we have the Senate, with six year terms and equal apportionment as a bulwark against often short term passions. And it's why we have the Electoral College, in part to prevent highly populated states from running roughshod over everyone else (in 1790 Virginia had ~20% of the country's population).
Federalist 39 explains how the Constitution establishes a government part national and part federal, again to control the effects of factions. The House, with election of representatives based on equal populations, is more national, its power derived directly from the people. The Senate, with election of its members at a state level and two per state regardless of population, is more federal and was an essential piece in the formation of our government. Election of the President is a combination of the two, balancing the power of the people and the power of the states. Smaller states do have somewhat outsized power in this respect, but that's really the point. Consent of both large and small states were needed to ratify this government, and to amend it, and the balance between them remains paramount today.
Federalist 68 goes a bit deeper on why this manner of election is a prudent choice. The electors are chosen by the people in the states, with the idea they're above reproach. As temporarily selected by the people, and as they cannot simultaneously be elected office holders, the electors can resist the influence of permanent political pressures, both domestic and foreign. That an absolute majority of electoral votes is needed to win the presidency is also important to the republic, hence the contingency plans. As always Hamilton (who wrote this one) gets down pretty far into the weeds, but his thoughts were sound.
The system they created may not be perfect. It's a primary reason we always only have two parties. I don't like the possibility of 'faithless electors' in a super close race. The concept however is ingenious and reflects the Framers intent, and my continued desire, for a highly stable and partially indirect democratic republic. A candidate must appeal to a variety of people across this diverse country or else is doomed to fail. Very few times (four since the Civil War) has the popular vote and electoral vote differed, though with two recently (2000, 2016) it seems common. That recent trend is largely due to the sheer population and voting patterns of California, so we'll likely see more such discrepancies in the future. If you didn't know, more than the entire difference in the 2016 popular vote (almost 3 million) was due to California alone (more than 4 million). To me that's a point in favor of keeping the Electoral College, not abandoning it. I'd rather the outcome be determined more by average/median voters in swing states than the political fringes.
There are other considerations as well. A popular vote for President would probably lead to more Federal oversight on elections. How elections actually run should as much as possible remain with the states and localities who know their people and operations best. I also want to avoid a national recount at absolutely all costs. Florida in 2000 was bad enough, can you imagine that on a nationwide scale?
More than anything I'm tired of all the talk of the popular vote. The totals may be interesting, but it in reality has no impact on the outcome and never has. Sometimes it feels like there's intentional misdirection on the function of Presidential election, one of the reasons I felt led to write this post. If people truly want to change it, there should be more of a real effort toward a constitutional amendment to do so instead of just complaining or crying illegitimacy when the popular and electoral votes don't align. There have been changes before, like the 12th Amendment regarding the Vice Presidency. I would probably support an expansion of the House, which would both push each Representative toward a smaller number of constituents and give highly populated states increased power in the Electoral College. This wouldn't end the current system but could be a compromise that's much easier to accomplish, only requiring an update to statute (i.e. a law passed through Congress and signed by the President).
Maybe none of this is convincing to you. That's fine. Disagreement is good. But it's best to know how the current system works and why we have it. I think the reasons for it are still valid. We wouldn't have the durable union of states we have today, if a country at all, without innovation like the Electoral College. Hopefully you learned something, because I did. Lastly, a caution: there's no silver bullet or cure-all in politics and all our hopes and dreams shouldn't be pinned to one. Parties and electorates are constantly changing. No one party will ever be in power forever.
Now, may God be with us in the coming days.
Comments