Tonight is a historic night, so it warrants a post outside my three usual categories. Barack Obama was just projected as the next president. There will be massive coverage in the coming days of that amazing fact, and of every other aspect of the election. So here are a few words on something that won’t get any coverage.
Why does the United States still have an Electoral College? This antiquated institution was designed by the founders to put a brake on the public will, giving the electors the right to override popular opinion if the choice of president was deemed unworthy. By the way, electors to this day are under no legal obligation to vote for the winner of the popular vote for president in their state.
I’ve felt this way a long time, and used to think there would be a huge outcry if a president was ever elected while losing the popular vote. (I mean in modern times – apologies to Hayes over Tilden in 1876) But it happened in 2000 when Bush beat Gore. Everyone focused on the Florida recount, but no one seemed too upset that the popular vote didn’t decide who became president.
What the Electoral College does today is provide drama for the networks on election night, making the count more complicated and exciting, with an insider baseball feel. And it saves money when running for president. That’s because the Electoral College dictates where the candidates spend their money, since only the votes in contested swing states really get any attention.
Why tilt at this windmill, especially when changing it would require a constitutional amendment? It strikes at the heart of one person, one vote. Why shouldn’t all votes be equal? A vote in Ohio or Florida isn’t more important than mine or yours. And a candidate for president shouldn’t take broad swaths of the country for granted, or write them off. He or she should talk to all Americans. The Electoral College is an elitist, antidemocratic mechanism this country outgrew long ago.
Maybe we can get the Gates Foundation interested in underwriting a repeal movement.
I’ve been thinking that the Electoral College needs to be eliminated, but I see the arguments against that. Candidates would concentrate only on the populous states with big cities — NY, Chicago, LA, Dallas, etc. — and ignore small town America.
In doing a little research this morning, I found this tidbit about a proposal from the Californian Republican (I didn’t realize there were any!)
“The Republican proposal would replace the winner-take-all system with one in which the electoral votes would be awarded by how Congressional districts vote.”
Wow. How elegant. How simple. My staunchly-Republican district in Democratic Illinois, doesn’t count for anything in the Presidential vote, but this would change it. My district’s electoral vote would mean just as much as the one from the Chicago district.
Think of how this might affect campaigning… and how much more of an effort the candidates would have to make in ALL the states.
Carla — thanks for the good comment. I think the the makeup of the Senate, with two reps no matter the state population, is the way small state rights in this country will always be protected.
But the by district plan would definitely be a big improvement over what we have today. I THINK Maine does it that way now.