This week Electors met in all 50 states and the District of Columbia to formally elect Donald Trump as the 45th president of the US, despite the fact that his rival, Democrat Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by nearly three million votes. In light of this disparity, is it now time to abolish the Electoral College? Kristin Kanthak argues that such a move could create a new set of problems in future elections. Instead, she writes, a better move would be to end the two ‘bonus’ Electors states have regardless of population.
This year was a good one for Alexander Hamilton. His life inspired a Tony award-winning smash musical and his views of the proper role of the Electoral College were dinner table conversation after the contentious American presidential election. Many progressives argued that Hamilton gave Electors permission to ignore their state’s voters and select the winner of the national vote: Hillary Clinton. Hamilton, after all, did say in Federalist 68 that Electors should “vote their conscience for the good of America.” But Federalist 68 is an essay, not a sound bite, and there’s not much for a small-d democrat (or even a small-r republican) to like in Hamilton’s conception of the Electoral College. At the same time, though, abandoning the Electoral College altogether could be disastrous.
At one point in Federalist 68, Hamilton seems to foretell the possibility that the Russian government may have intentionally assisted Donald Trump in winning the election (or at least Hamilton foretold the intrigue if not the actual hacking of emails). Hamilton said that the Electoral College may protect us “from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.” But Hamilton is not talking about the Electoral College protecting us from the off chance that a foreign entity could prevent an election from properly selecting the president who represents the popular will of the people. To Hamilton, elites, not “the people,” should be selecting presidents.
Well, then, isn’t that a reason to do away with the Electoral College entirely? A majority of the American people voted for Hillary Clinton. Shouldn’t she be our president? Possibly. But before we throw the Electoral College out with the bathwater, let’s consider some of the benefits of keeping the antiquated system around:
- Having to win lots of states by a little bit is not such a bad thing. Consider a stark example: A little more than 53 percent of the US population lives in the states of the old Confederacy. Imagine a presidential candidate who promised not only social policies those voters prefer but a huge tax on all people living outside the old South, with the proceeds going entirely to those states. That candidate would win the election and become president in a victory large enough to preclude even a recount. Under the Electoral College, that candidate would receive a paltry 160 Electoral votes, less than 30 percent of the Electoral College total and 110 shy of the number needed to win. The Electoral College prevents these types of regional candidacies, which is probably a good thing.
- Ending the Electoral College may result in a dilution of minority vote strength. African Americans comprise about 13 percent of the American population and Latinos about 10 percent, not a large portion of the national electorate. But in several key states – Florida, Virginia, and North Carolina, for example – minority groups comprise a large enough voting bloc to merit attention from office-seeking candidates. States like Texas and Georgia could become the presidential battleground states of the future should demographics continue to change and the Electoral College remain in place.
- The 2000 election in Florida could happen again, but on a national scale. Those who don’t remember the hanging chads of the 2000 election firsthand have read about them in the history books. Close elections are fairly common in the US – see North Carolina’s recent gubernatorial election for the most recent example. But imagine a national recount that may take months rather than days to complete. Indeed, we have only recently completed the national ballot count, and that was without any sort of recount at all. The 2000 election was resolved in the second week of December. If we had to have a national recount, it would be unlikely to be complete by the time we needed to inaugurate a new president on January 20. Who would be in charge in the meantime?
The Electoral College isn’t perfect. It, like the Senate, favors small states over larger ones because each state gets a “bonus” two Electors regardless of population. This means that California gets 55 Electors for its 38.8 million residents – a little more than 705,000 residents per Elector – whereas Wyoming (with 3 Electors and a population of about 584,200) has a mere 195,000 residents per Elector. Even if we were to drop the two extra electors, California would have 732,000 residents per Elector, still more than Wyoming’s 584,200 per Elector, but the difference is not nearly as dramatic.
Dropping the two extra Electors, then, would allow us to narrow the representation gap of the Electoral College while allowing its more salutary effects to remain. Of course, winning players are generally loath to change the rules of the game. Dropping the two extra Electors might be more small-d democratic, but we should not expect big-R Republicans to support the change any time soon.
Featured image credit: By Publius (pseudonym) [Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, James Madison]. [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
Please read our comments policy before commenting.
Note: This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of USAPP– American Politics and Policy, nor of the London School of Economics.
Shortened URL for this post: http://bit.ly/2hgyy0X
_________________________________
Kristin Kanthak – University of Pittsburgh
Kristin Kanthak, a native of Walnut, Calif., joined Pitt’s faculty in 2006. She is a coauthor of The Diversity Paradox: Political Parties, Legislatures, and the Organizational Foundations of Representation in America, which was named the recipient of the 2013 Alan Rosenthal Prize. The annual award is sponsored by the American Political Science Association’s Legislative Studies Section and is given to the best book or article on legislative studies that has potential value to legislative practitioners. Kanthak received her PhD in political science from the University of Iowa.
To end the two ‘bonus’ Electors states have regardless of population, would require a constitutional amendment, which could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population.
Instead, pragmatically, The National Popular Vote bill is 61% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency in 2020 to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.
All voters would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where they live.
Candidates, as in other elections, would allocate their time, money, polling, organizing, and ad buys roughly in proportion to the population
Every vote, everywhere, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of predictable outcomes.
No more handful of ‘battleground’ states (where the two major political parties happen to have similar levels of support) where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ predictable states that have just been ‘spectators’ and ignored after the conventions.
The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.
All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.
The bill was approved this year by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).
The bill has passed 34 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 261 electoral votes.
The bill has been enacted by 11 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the way to guaranteeing the presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in the country
NationalPopularVote
A National Popular Vote would undermine the Great Compromise. It would be a massive coup in the balance struck between high-population States and low-population States that has been the rule the US has lived and grown under since the time of the founding. It would completely unbalance the Electoral College by making it dependent solely upon States by their population.
There are valid and legitimate reasons that the Electoral College gives weight to States, as States. They’re the same reasons we have a Senate. And since the tension between high-population and low-population States is as real as it has ever been, the reasons for the Electoral Collage are still valid, and still legitimate.
In the United States, both in its political philosophy and its governmental structure, the People are clearly important–and the States are important, too. A National Popular Vote would disregard this central, fundamental property of American government. It’s not a modest reform; it’s radical and extreme, weighing in one one of the most literally fundamental questions of American governance in a one-sided way.
With National Popular Vote, when every popular vote counts and matters to the candidates equally, successful candidates will find a middle ground of policies appealing to the wide mainstream of America. Instead of playing mostly to local concerns in Ohio and Florida, candidates finally would have to form broader platforms for broad national support. Elections wouldn’t be about winning a handful of battleground states.
Support for a national popular vote has been strong in every smallest state surveyed in polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group
Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in 9 state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 4 jurisdictions.
Now political clout comes from being among the handful of battleground states. 70-80% of states and voters are ignored by presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits. Their states’ votes were conceded months before by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns.
State winner-take-all laws negate any simplistic mathematical equations about the relative power of states based on their number of residents per electoral vote. Small state math means absolutely nothing to presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, or to presidents once in office.
In the 25 smallest states in 2008, the Democratic and Republican popular vote was almost tied (9.9 million versus 9.8 million), as was the electoral vote (57 versus 58).
In 2012, 24 of the nation’s 27 smallest states received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions. They were ignored despite their supposed numerical advantage in the Electoral College. In fact, the 8.6 million eligible voters in Ohio received more campaign ads and campaign visits from the major party campaigns than the 42 million eligible voters in those 27 smallest states combined.
The 12 smallest states are totally ignored in presidential elections. These states are not ignored because they are small, but because they are not closely divided “battleground” states.
Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive in presidential elections. 6 regularly vote Republican (AK, ID, MT, WY, ND, and SD), and 6 regularly vote Democratic (RI, DE, HI, VT, ME, and DC) in presidential elections.
Similarly, the 25 smallest states have been almost equally noncompetitive. They voted Republican or Democratic 12-13 in 2008 and 2012.
Voters in states, of all sizes, that are reliably red or blue don’t matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.
If the NPV were enacted, the political center of gravity in determining the Presidency would move permanently away from the modest balance currently struck between considering States on the basis of their population, and considering States on the basis of their Statehood. In addition, the NPV would effectively be a direct vote for the Presidency, in which people vote for the President, instead of contributing to their States’ votes for the President. Structurally speaking, the Presidency would be less institutionally inclined to respect Statehood itself.
The NPV may well be favored in some surveys or polls. But the answers people give in surveys and polls often depend upon the way the questions are presented. The National Popular Vote is usually explained in a partially-honest manner that hides the major and permanent changes that it seeks regarding one of the most significant and fundamental structures of the federal government. It sounds innocent enough, until it is understood.
In reality, the NPV has (understandably) not been particularly well-received among low-population States. The NPV has been enacted by three of the 13 lowest population States (Vermont, Rhode Island, and Hawaii). But the next-lowest population State to enact the NPV is the 32nd lowest-population State, Maryland. Instead, support for the NPV has been primarily embraced by States that tend to provide electoral votes for Democratic candidates. That is, support for the NPV appears to have a partisan and/or ideological basis.
To say that small-State math “means absolutely nothing to presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, or to presidents once in office” is simply false. To start with, because of the Electoral College, the very existence of small States moves the political center-of-gravity modestly and slightly in their direction, thus impacting polling, organizing, ad spending, and visitation decisions for campaigns as a whole.
And the notion that small States–or, indeed, any States–mean absolutely nothing to Presidents once in office does not even pass the smell test. The point of the Electoral College is to make the Presidency politically accountable to the States, based upon the formula for representation established in the Constitution (i.e., Representatives + Senators). The underlying political theory is that the President, so elected, will be accountable to (at least) the States that have elected a candidate. Claims to the contrary stand outside this well-established and widely-accepted concept.
Finally, one of the most prominent bits of misinformation spread by the NPV campaign is that outside of battleground States, the voters are “ignored” by the parties in presidential campaigns. This is just not true. There is a difference between a candidate “ignoring” a State and a candidate “counting upon” a State. Candidates count upon non-battleground States—indeed, they base their campaigns on them. And candidates are able to depend upon these States because their policy objectives are already well aligned with the desires of their voters.
In other words, not actively campaigning in a State is not “ignoring” a State. To the contrary, States are “safe” for a candidate only because the candidate already well-represents the interests of the voters of those States. That’s precisely what makes those States “safe”.
Because each state has independent power to award its electoral votes in the manner it sees fit, it is difficult to see what “adverse effect” might be claimed by one state from the decision of another state to award its electoral votes in a particular way. It is especially unclear what adverse “political” effect might be claimed, given that the National Popular Vote compact would treat votes cast in all 50 states and the District of Columbia equally. A vote cast in a compacting state is, in every way, equal to a vote cast in a non-compacting state. The National Popular Vote compact does not confer any advantage on states belonging to the compact as compared to non-compacting states. A vote cast in a compacting state would be, in every way, equal to a vote cast in a non-compacting state. The National Popular Vote compact certainly would not reduce the voice of voters in non-compacting states relative to the voice of voters in member states.
If not for the compact itself, this argument would have merit. As it stands, the nature of the compact itself undercuts the point being made.
It is a fundamental aspect of the NPV compact that after number of States whose collective EC votes can decide an election have adopted the NPV–and only after that–the participating States will all swing their votes to the candidate that wins the popular vote. At that point, non-adopting States can indeed technically do whatever they wish with their votes; but by definition, whatever they may do won’t make a bit of difference. The electoral college will be essentially gutted, and its shell will be filled with a direct popular election of the President. Indeed, that’s the whole point.
The trouble is, the Electoral College currently grants some votes to the States by Statehood, whereas the NPV would change the Electoral College to be solely based upon population. So the adopting States could, by fiat, force a change in the very nature of the how we establish the Presidency that the non-adopting States would be utterly powerless to resist.
And that’s the adverse effect: That some States could change the Electoral College itself to the very real political disadvantage of smaller-population States (and their Peoples). The “adverse effect” involved is actually easy to describe. Allowing oneself to see (and/or appreciate) the adverse effect may be another thing entirely.
In the current system, battleground states are the only states that matter in presidential elections. Campaigns are tailored to address the issues that matter to voters in these states.
Safe red and blue states are considered a waste of time, money and energy to candidates. These “spectator” states receive no campaign attention, polling, organizing, visits, or ads. Their concerns are utterly ignored.
The influence of ethnic minority voters has decreased tremendously as the number of battleground states dwindles. For example, in 1976, 73% of blacks lived in battleground states. In 2004, that proportion fell to a mere 17%. Just 21% of African Americans and 18% of Latinos lived in the 12 closest battleground states. So, roughly 80% of non-white voters might as well have not existed when there were 12 battleground states..
The bill has been endorsed by organizations such as the League of Women Voters, Common Cause, FairVote, Sierra Club, NAACP, National Black Caucus of State Legislators, ACLU, the National Latino Congreso, Asian American Action Fund, DEMOS, National Coalition on Black Civic Participation, Public Citizen, U.S. PIRG, and the Brennan Center for Justice.
The two extra electors per State are tied to the existence of the Senate. Their primary contemporary function with respect to the Executive branch is analogous to the function of the Senate in the Legislature. And through the bicameralism of the Legislative branch, it is fundamentally tied to the “Great Compromise”: the deal between large-population States and small-population States without which there may not be a United States at all.
Those two electors per State are not a minor feature of the Electoral College. They are a primary feature, and they are fundamentally tied to the existence of the United States itself. If not for those electors, States by their population would cease to exercise a mere 81% of the control over the Executive branch, and would instead exercise 100% of that control.
That’s not a modest reform. That’s a massive power grab to the vast benefit of of high-population States.
Dropping those two extra electors would utterly gut the electoral college, and whatever functions would remain to it would be incidental. If such amendment of the Electoral College is on offer, it may as well be ended.
The whole movement to “improve” the Electoral College by having states pass laws forcing their electors to vote for the winner of the national popular vote is the most pernicious, deceitful, cynical bit of demagogic hucksterism to come down the pike probably in the history of the USA. There are so many reasons the whole thing is an absolute crock, it boggles the mind just to try and keep them all in order.
The whole thrust of this movement is insidious, its objective is a pure lie.
To put it the most simply: this movement, were it to succeed, would NOT “improve” the Electoral College. It would ABOLISH it in every way except for leaving a hollow shell, a charade, a pretense.
As it stands now, the electors actually CAN vote for whoever they want. (Hence that whole desperate campaign in 2016 to get them not to vote for Trump.) But historically they have mostly stuck honorably to their promise to vote for the candidate WHO WON THEIR STATES. (Thus Trump’s victory in 2016.) This campaign would, ironically, take away from the electors the very freedom that the anti-Trumpers were pinning their last hopes on in 2016.
The people who want to ditch the Electoral College know it’s an impossible battle to amend the constitution. NO state is going to vote away its place at the table, especially not the smaller states that know it means they are henceforth vassals of the New York-California Principate.
So instead they’re trying to do this end-run on the constitution by saying, “Okay, we won’t abolish the Electoral College; we’ll just bind electors by state law to vote for the popular vote winner.”
Which means it’s the same outcome, precisely the same thing as abolishing the Electoral College. Without all the muss and fuss of doing it honestly, LEGALLY.
So it’s a lie and a fraud, an insidious ploy to destroy the people’s constitution by steamrolling the people.
If the electors can only vote for the popular vote winner, then, 1) why should the electors vote at ALL? Why on earth go through the empty formality? What does “Electoral College” MEAN, then? Obviously, nothing. I.e., we’ve got effective abolishment not only of IT but of its whole constitutional rationale. Which leads to… 2) why then should the citizens in a state where the majority are FOR a candidate they know full well New York and California are AGAINST—EVEN. VOTE?
They know, after all, that their state electors will invalidate their vote ANYWAY….
A bit of DISENFRANCHISEMENT, anyone? With a heaping dollop of serfdom?
I hope and trust that, finally, the Supreme Court will fully strike down these idiotic state laws. The laws amount to a repeal of the constitutionally established Electoral College in everything but name, in the most underhanded, insidious, fraudulent manner possible.
Michael Avenatti could hardly have thunk up anything more sleazy.
Our country is the United STATES of America, not The United Citizens of America. The Electoral College gives every state a meaningful voice at the table, and requires presidential candidates to at least TRY to win over the whole country. If this malignant movement to destroy the Electoral College prevails (and I don’t see how it finally can, unless the Supreme Court is doing LSD), the United STATES of America is finally and conclusively OVER. Something, of course, will take its place, something still called the USA, but…no, it won’t be. The name USA, just like “Electoral College”, will be a pretense, a charade.