Centerfield

The reason I support the EC is because the framers created a republic that respects minority rights. The republic doesn't require majority rule; in fact the framers were just as concerned about a tyranny of the majority as they were the minority. They were suspicious of direct democracy, and all we have to do is look at the results of the many state issue referendums to see how easily uneducated voters can be manipulated. Prop 13 anyone? Prop 187 anyone? English as official language? Gay marriage? Confederate flag? The list of dubious (and counterproductive) initiatives is endless.

When you view the republic, you should view it in its totality, not just its population distribution. There is a huge, sparsely populated land mass that is agriculturally productive, minerologically productive, or both. Without the protection of the Senate and the EC, it's quite conceivable the more populated areas could use their popular vote majority to negatively exploit the interior.

As an Iowan who hunts, I don't want urban or coastal advocates for gun control passing laws barring me from owning a shotgun and hunting pheasants. It's pretty obvious the EC affected the politics of putting nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. Nevada's population doesn't want it, but the more populated states want to put the stuff there anyway.

Considering the size of the federal government, anything that protects the rights of the states is a good thing. The EC does just that.

I don't think you need worry about coastal types banning shotguns. The way things are going, its the coastal types who will need protection against an overbearing federal government run by southern and heartland conservatives.

I'm not arguing against a federal system. There are plenty ways to have federalism without having an electoral process that semi-randomly awards the political office the person who didn't get the most votes.

The Electoral College will not be abolished, for the very simple reason that it provides more states with added electoral influence (greater than their population numbers) than it disadvantages, and because it would take 3/4 of all of the states at the state legistature level agreeing to change the system. Not bloody likely!

We live in a national republic, not a democracy, and the members of the republic (the states) devised the system to keep the stronger, larger members from oppressing the lesser and smaller. It is an explicit barrier against a tyranny of state majority on a national scale.

This was the intended effect of the EC structure, so essentially what the would-be abolitionists are complaining about is that it works as designed, but works to their current disadvantage. I don't see how that makes the system "totally stupid," any more than the Bill of Rights is "totally stupid" in protecting the rights of individuals. To paraphrase Orwell, some states apparently want to be more equal than others.

Noting what the system is designed to do and that it works at its intended purpose, an intelligent person needn't be partisanly biased at all to want to keep it--just baised in the same way many of us are about the Bill of Rights, in wanting to keep it.

Sorry Tully, you mostly present reasonable cases. This, however, is just smoke to disguise interest. By your logic, we ought to go back to the original system designed by the framers of legislatures electing senators rather than direct popular vote. Do you advocate that, and if not, why not?

The electoral college advantage is hardly large enough to effectively protect states from federal oppression. The Senate and the courts do that. This is just a small advantage to the Republicans than few Republicans want to give up, and few Democrats advocate.

You're right though, It won't be abolished.

I agree 100% with Tully. It works just like it's supposed to, and we're stuck with it.

Rick I'm not sure how one goes about accurately quantifying large enough to effectively protect states from federal oppression. IMO, the EC provides some measure of protection both against federal oppression and the tyranny of the majority. It doesn't prevent it or provide a guarantee against it, it just proves a little extra power. It stacks the deck a little in favor of the little states in service to these ends. And it seems to be working.

IMO, it's an essential founding compromise, and I can't see preserving the union at the same time as we'd somehow abolish the EC.

I just can't see any basis for the description totally stupid nor do I buy the contention that pure majority vote is somehow inherently "fairer."

I'm sure you recognize the following, but even so I think it's important to note: this alleged 20% advantage for republicans is in no way whatsoever constructed specifically to privilege the Republican party. It's there for the smaller states' protection, and the GOP were smart to exploit it, and the Democrats foolish to ignore it. If anything, it's just another compelling reason for the democratic party to listen more closely to the red states.

I'm going to try to take a stab at some sort of measurement of the small state prejudice. I already have a table somewhere that compares each state's current electoral power to the power that it WOULD have under a simple 1-person, 1 vote system in which the existing electoral votes were redistributed purely on the basis of population but each state still granted their ECs on a winner take all basis.

Smoke to disguise interest? Nope. I'm utterly sincere. It's not a matter of partisan bias, it's a matter of not "fixing" what isn't broken. I think the EC is functioning as designed, and I approve of the design.

Your arguments for abolishing the EC system and are that (1) it sometimes allows a winner who received fewer popular votes than his opponent, and (2) that it disadvantages Democrats. The first is by design, and the second is by circumstance. In a two-party system one side or the other will be disadvantaged by circumstance in every single instance, to one degree or another. So what? Why is that a reason to change the system, other than a partisan one? I have non-partisan reasons for disagreeing. I would still disagree if the system disadvantaged Republicans. Is that such a stretch?

By your logic, we ought to go back to the original system designed by the framers of legislatures electing senators rather than direct popular vote. Do you advocate that, and if not, why not?

(Right--and have you quit beating your wife? Just answer yes or no!) My argument is NOT one of worshipping original intent or original construction as a "good" in itself, so your question is irrelevant. My point is noting that the original construction works in this case, that there are good and sound reasons for it, and that there would need to be a lot better reason to change it than what has been offered. No more. No less. I note that the same logic you offer for abolishing the EC would be just as valid in arguing for population-proportional assignment of Senate seats (which would also solve the EC "problem," and in a more conceptually elegant fashion to boot). Do you favor that? If not, why not?

1. I'll take back the "totally stupid" if enough of you insist on it, but I don't see any moral basis for privileging some citizens ahead of others. What proof is there that the rural states are oppressed? On the contrary, the deck is stacked against the urban states.

If Iraq or some other new democracy tried to adopt an electoral college system today, I doubt the international community, or the State Department, would allow it.

2. I calculate NOT a 20% advantage, but rather a 20 Electoral Vote advantage. It's fairly slim, and I'm not sure if it's every swung an election. Brian, I wish you would do that calculation. The random effects of the winner-take-all aspect are dominant features of the system.

3. Yes, the GOP is smart to exploit our quirky system, and the Democratic Party is foolish.

Unfortunately, your analysis only takes into account the last two elections. It doesn't account for the Reagan sweep or for Nixon's.What would you do about the '92 and '96 elections when no candidate received a popular vote majority?

In fact, the EC was a brilliant dollop of rounding-up mathematics by the Founding Fathers. It has proved its value in a bunch of elections (think JFK in '60), by declaring a clear winner. It is a historically sound process.

I must say that all the complaints about the EC over the last five years, say to me more about the complainers than it does about the EC.

1. The idea of changing the Senate is so not going to happen that I wouldn't spend much time thinking about it. But yet, I think there's something wrong with Nebraksa having the same number of Senators as California. Maybe we could redraw state lines while we're at it, splitting California and Texas into multiple states, while putting Kansas and Nebraska back together.

2. There is a real cost of having elections that are not accepted as legitimate. You can see that in Ukraine today. Setting the identity of the President aside, there has been a cost in the current presidential term of having a 2nd-place President in producing a highly polarized atmosphere while we're at war. The worst crisis was over the Hayes-Tilden debacle of 1876, which could have led to violence, and was only accepted with the Compromise of 1877 which ended Reconstruction and condemned blacks to a century of segregation.

If there IS any "moral" basis that exists to support one system of keeping score (the EC) over some other system (like pure majority vote), it's simply the moral basis of keeping your word, honoring your agreement.

The compromise that was institutionalized by establishing the EC system was the deal that allowed either the formation or the flourishing of our union, or both (I'm not sure of when and how the system was established or grew). But at some point when we had 20 or 30 something states and wanted to add more, we had to offer each prospective new state 2 senators to get them to join, and the number of electors that they qualified for based on population +2. That was the deal. Now, it's moral for the nation to live up to the deals it struck. You seem to be implying that it's inherently more moral to change the deal because it would treat everyone "more equally" even though for some portion of the people "more equally" would also mean a diminishment of previously agreed upon power. That's the tension.

Lots of other things could probably happen to effect the current balance. We could add states, right? And I'm also guessing that it's possible that some states could choose to subdivide. Anyone know the details on that? Could Florida break into 2, or California into 3 if it really wanted to?

This is all academic, of course. Nothing will change.

However, with regard to the morality of observing deals going back a century or two, there is something to be said for that, and of course the law requires it until the law is changed. On the other hand, that logic could be used to defend a system of "rotten boroughs" such as was abolished in the Reform of 1832 which brought true parliamentary democracy to Great Britain. There are real situations when historic privileges are true human rights situations, like minority language rights in some nations, or American Indian treaties. But Arizon's admission to the union in 1912 was not a historic deal that should forever prevent changes to the constitutional system.

With regard to the question of what would happen in an alternate system if a candidate did not win a majority of the popular vote, there are various alternatives which could be comtemplated, including a runoff which occurs in the Evil Republic (i.e. France). Since the EC won't be abolished, I don't feel like expending the effort to evaluate the pros and cons of the various alternatives.

I agree that conspiracy theories about Republicans tampering with the Ohio vote reflect poorly on those who offer them. But the fairness of the second place vote-getter being declared the "winner" is so basic that even a kindergartener can appreciate it.

The only state that can legally break up into more states on its own accord is Texas. When Texas joined the Union, it retained the right to split up into as many as six seperate states. There are those who would maintain that Texas forfeited that right by joining the Confederacy. In any case, Texas has shown no inclination to explore the option.

As for the rest, you're right, Rick--it's an academic argument. It's not going to change, at least not anytime soon.

bk-

Texas entered the union when it was an independent republic. At that time, it cut a deal whereby it could subdivide itself into as many as 5 states. I believe it still retains that right. As far as I know, no other state currently has that right.

rickheller -

The only reason I raised the rhetorical question about '92 and '96 was to debate your assertion that the EC provides an advantage to the Republican Party. It has amused me to no end to see the intellectual "agonistes" over the last two elections. Most recently, I have seen discussions (which I presume are at least semi-serious) about blue-state secession, tax revolt (blues subsidize reds), and economic warfare. What I find particularly amusing is that the red states represent the heart of FDR's Democratic Party.

Personally, I think that the country was loathe to change Presidents in the middle of a war - and that that was the determining issue of this election.

However, I am happy to discuss the viewpoint that the parties have switched roles; that the Democrats are the party of managers and bosses and the Republicans have become the party of the worker class. In addition to fitting most of the demographic data that has been published, this theory also fits my personal experience. I live in a blue state, and every upper-class and upper-middle-class person I know is an avid Democrat. Every Joe Six-Pack I know is a Republican.

Very interesting.

I yield to Tully regarding the number of states that Texas may (or may not) be able to create.

It might be five--it's been a long time since I went to school in Texas!

1) Electoral College debates remind me of those late-night, undergraduate arguments after everyone's had too much to drink in the sense that everyone knows nothing will ever change, but the breath (and ink) still get wasted. Thank you, Tully, for saying everything I'd have said if I'd been around this afternoon.

2) It could just be that I'm an elitist bastard, but I think that state legislators electing senators is a proper institutionalization of federalism. How many unfunded mandate arguments would there have been in the 1990s if the Senate comprised state-appointed representatives? Now, arguing that we should go back is as futile as arguing about changing the Electoral College--unless you're Alan Keyes--so I don't purport to do here.

3) While Texas had a right, which may or may not have been waived in the 1860s, to break up into up to five states, any state may break up with the consent of Congress and its own legislature--and sometimes without the consent of its legislature depending on how picky one is about origins of West Virginia. Let's not remind Karl Rove, though, or Tom DeLay's Texas redistricting plan might pale in comparison. ("How many red states can we divide up to increase our Electoral College count in 2008....hmmm...")

Tully & LR,

The number is "up to five." Or, more precisely, "not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas . . . ." See the Joint Resolution for Annexing Texas to the United States, here.

As I said, it's been a long time since I went to school in Texas! Five it is. I wonder if the fedeal government would make the argument that the Texas subdivision has already occured, as the Disputed Territory claimed by Texas at the time of admission (and that was subsequently seized in the Mexican-American War) actually covered bits of five states other than modern-day Texas.

The Republic of Texas

Literally Retarded:

The Republican "lock" on the electoral college was discussed in the 1980's as well, but Bill Clinton was able to break it as a southern governor. There are fewer and fewer southerners in the Democratic Party who could take on that role. Interestingly, Gore is supposedly a southerner, but the region perceived him more as a creature of the capital (where he went to high school)

You are absolutely righ that the red states represent the heart of FDR's coalition. There's been pretty much a flip in state loyalties since then. The Democrats are the party of upper class professionals (but not entrepreneurs). The working class is in the process of deserting it, but many Democrats don't have enough self-knowledge to see it. I'd be very interested in seeing that demographic data, so please supply a link if you have one available, or email it to blog @ centristcoalition.com

Well, since Congress is controlled by Republicans, and the Republican Texas legislature would likely split Texas in a pro-Republican way, I suspect that Tom DeLay would shepherd through the House a consenting resolution anyway. (Just think, he could split off tiny slivers of the state, each with a relatively low population, like N.D., and each would get its own Republican Representative! That way, the remaining State of Texas may not even lose the full four seats.)

And I doubt Bill Frist would mind getting new GOP senators. They'd almost have the 3/5s majority for cloture with 63 of 108 senators.

Ew, ew, on second thought, let's stop thinking about this before it gives anyone ideas.

The skew provided by the two 'Senate' electors guarantees that the EC will not be going away anytime soon.

As for the EC working 'as planned', are y'all remembering that it was created to function in a much less partisan context and that the second highest vote-getter would become vice president? Things changed rapidly with the election of Jefferson.

rickheller -

The data I referred to was my general scan of the post-election slice-and-dice of the all the pollsters. I will try to round up some links today.

I still don't think that there is (or was) a GOP lock on any states. Nor is there a Democratic lock anywhere. I do think, however, that circumstances and history often intersect with a party and candidate.

But a candidate has to know how the system works. Gore blew the '00 election by running away from Clinton, and moving far enough left to lose a couple of states that were in his pocket. It was his responsibility to know how the EC works. In 2000, Bush ran to win the election. Gore ran to prove he was his own man.

What a great discussion. And I believe it is substantive, not just blowing smoke (ah the old late night dormrooms!) to have a discussion like this because it serves to remind people of the system we actually live in. It's not a true democracy and it wasn't intended to be.

In the Federalist #39 Madison describes at length how the system is both federal and national in character. It's a blend that was brought about by necessity. The constitution never would have been ratified without this dual character. We simply wouldn't exist as a nation today.

Rick, we now have direct election of senators because of a constitutional amendment. If those who want to abolish the EC want to get an amendment passed, the amendment allowing for direct election of senators shows it can be done. However, the entire amendment process is just another example of the framer's deciding to give significant powers to the minority.

I also don't understand your view that small states shouldn't have as many senators as big states. The framers were wise to give power to confirm high level administrative appointments, and foreign treaties to the senate. Otherwise I could see coastal states dictating import/export law for their own benefit at the expense of interior producers, or ram through judicial appointments that would uphold laws allowing for seizure of private property in Iowa to hold garbage from New York City.

AND we have never had a president elected with a minority vote; he's always won the EC!

JD, anyone trying to split up Texas at this point in time would need a somewhat larger military force than we've got in Iraq to avoid being split into several pieces themselves by the Texans, so I wouldn't worry about it much.

Erasmus, I think the Democratic-Republicans and the Federalists of the late 1700's might disagree with you about "less partisan." The mechanics of the EC changed somewhat in 1804, but the purpose of it still remains--a system whereby the states, not the people, vote for President and Vice-President, with their voting representation being equal to their Congressional representation.

Tim, it's actually possible for someone to be elected President without a majority of the EC, if the vote gets thrown to the House.

The original system (US Const Art 2 Sec 1) didn't strictly mandate that the highest vote-getter be President and the second-highest VP, but that the highest vote-getter if he had a majority became President. (This still applies, though the mechanics of choosing the VP have changed--see below). If there was no majority, or if there was a tie between two candidates, the House picked the winner. Which is what happened in 1800. After that, the person with the highest number of votes other than the chosen President would automatically be VP, with the Senate breaking VP vote ties. But if there was no majority winner, the House could pick the Pres from among the top five vote-getters, so it was possible for someone to be Pres by House choice without getting the top number of electoral votes, with the top vote-getter then automatically becoming the VP.

The original article was poorly written. For one thing, it implied that two candidates could both have a majority without a tie. The poor phrasing as well as the flap over the Jefferson/Burr contest of 1800 being thrown into the House led to the 12th Amendment, ratified in 1804.

The 12th Amendment ended the practice of the highest finisher other than the man picked as President getting the VP job, but it's worth noting that the only time the original system resulted in a VP of a different party than the President was the 1796 election--both Burr and Jefferson were Democratic-Republicans, forcing the House to choose between two men of the same party when they tied in the EC in 1800. And even Washington had Democratic-Republican opponents in 1789 and 1792, though they had no chance at all of beating the Hero of the Potomac. It took dissatisfaction with the Federalists for the Democratic-Republicans to finally get enough votes to win either office in 1800, and then they won both.

The 12th did not (and still does not) mandate that the VP be of the same party as the President, or even of the same ticket, it simply makes them seperate ballots. It's still conceivable (though only slightly less likely than the sun rising in the west) that the VP could end up being the winner's opponent if the individual state legislatures allowed their electors to "ticket split" on their Pres/VP votes.

The electoral college is totally stupid, and any intelligent, unbiased person would want to abolish it.

How can you argue with that without looking like a complete idiot? It's like Jerry Falwell saying (as he did last Sunday on Meet the Press) that no one who takes the Bible seriously can be in favor of abortion. It's a rhetorical device that may intimidate some. But, it neither adds to nor subtracts from an argument you are trying to make. Except for the few who recognize the device and consider it to be an exercise in intellectual laziness (i.e. a substitute for a real argument).

In any case, I think we should tread carefully when it comes to abolishing anything that has been around for any length of time. While I'm willing to admit of the possibility that the Electoral College has zero value in our modern world, I'd like to be sure that that's the case ... starting with why the Electoral College was established in the first place.

Time tends to dilute the reasons for why institutions exist. I'd like to know those reasons in the context of when they were used. And, from there, we can judge whether those reasons are valid in our modern context. And if those reasons are valid, perhaps we can come up with a better system that addresses the concerns that the Electoral College was created to deal with.

My biggest concern is the potential to destroy a means by which power is checked. My paranoia could be unfounded, but I'm concerned that without the Electoral College (or something else that balances population with region), more dense regions of the United States would have a disproportionate control over the lives of all Americans.

If my paranoia is well-founded, eliminating the Electoral College could make today's "culture war" look like a walk in the park. For it's the only thing that "Flyover Country" can hang its hat on. Without it, they would feel as though they have no control over who is in the White House and it would fulfill their worst fears of being governed by those who couldn't care less about their concerns and values.

Tully:

Thanks for the correction. I should have used the term plurality, except in your House example, even a candidate without a plurality can win, is that correct?

Yep. The House chooses from the top few on the lsit, but needn't choose THE top of the list.

If you want to see what a national Presidential direct election would look like in the U.S. without an electoral college, just take a look at what is happening in Ukraine. Without the mechanism of the electoral college (flawed and archaic as it may be) our last two elections would have ended up looking pretty much the same. Without an electoral college, we would probably have had perhaps a million protesters clogging the streets of Washington right now, refusing to accept the accuracy or legitimacy of the outcome.

When I was a TA teaching American Government, I once spent three days on the electoral college because it was something I found interesting. Apparently my students didn't share my interest.

The EC exists for a number of reasons I think: (1) the founders did not trust democracy that much and feared the uninformed electorate would elect a complete boob to the office (good thing that's never happened); (2) as part of the small-state/big-state compromise (which included equal representation in the Senate to offset the large state advantage in the House); and (3) to try to insure a truly national president.

The problems with the EC from a modern perspective are that (1) it means that many people are wasting their votes; (2)it gives disproportionate power to small states; (3) it allows someone to be elected with fewer popular votes.

The only one of these that really bother me is the first; personally, I don't like the fact that my vote often has no effect. I live in a blue state (Maryland) and, while I typically vote Democratic, it hardly makes much difference one way or the other.

The elitist factor doesn't really matter anymore because the electors no longer function as independent voters--they simply cast their votes for whomever gets the most votes in their state. They don't legally have to do this, but it's hard to see anyone not doing that these days.

I think the EC does help (although it does not guarantee) to promote more national candidates. Without the EC, in theory, a person could win simply by rolling up huge margins in particular sections (e.g., George Wallace in the South) or at least winning enough votes to be able to influence the election (assuming you had some sort of runoff system). Some would say Bush did that by running up his base, but he won more states and it would be hard to argue he wasn't a national candidate. Arguable, without the EC, sectional issues might be more important at the expense of the nation as a whole.

If I was starting a new electoral system today in the United States, I probably wouldn't create the EC. But, sometimes, you need to be careful what you wish for. As people have pointed out, it's not clear that winning a popular vote by a very small margin confers any more legitimacy on a candidate. Look at the Washington gubernatorial race. I think it's a mistake to change a system that has functioned reasonably well for 200 years just because of a couple of elections.

The only one of these that really bother me is the first; personally, I don't like the fact that my vote often has no effect. I live in a blue state (Maryland) and, while I typically vote Democratic, it hardly makes much difference one way or the other.

I live in Maryland, too. Where abouts? At any rate, I've never felt that way about my vote because I'm aware of the fact that Maryland went for Reagan not all that long ago. And Maryland elected its first Republican governor in many moons.

I've set up an entire blog to discuss this at:
http://electoralreform.blogspot.com/

I'm just getting started with it, so not much has happened. With this crew, we could have a heck of a discussion...

Don,

I live in Rockville, outside Washington. Where are you? I wasn't here when MD went for Reagan. I just felt that it didn't really make much difference if I voted for Kerry or Bush; the outcome was pretty much decided. Of course, that may be more of a function of polls and, in fairness, you could say the same thing about any popular election that's not close. And you are right, it's a somewhat unpredictable state.

Part of the issue with the EC is whether you think states really count or just voters. Obviously, there are a lot more voters in places like California and New York than in Wyoming and Idaho.

Dan, I get the feeling that for most of us here, our interest is sated. It is for me at least. Most especially because there is zero chance that reform will occur. The number of small states that benefit from the electoral sytem are too numerous for any change to have any chance of passing the senate.

But if you want, I can send you my table which compares each state's percent of US population to its percent of the total electoral votes as a way of showing how each states voter power is amplified or diminished by the Ec system. For example, Wyoming gets the greatest amplification. It has only 0.18% of US population, but it gets 0.54% of the electoral votes, a threefold (200%) amplification. Texas gets the most diminishment, 19%. Let me know, but don't use a@b.com, that's a bogey, obviously. hit me in tomorrow's open thread.