Electoral College

If the invisible primary has gained in prominence, the same could not be said about the Electoral College. America’s method of electing its Head of State looks antiquated in the modern era. To its manifold critics, the Electoral College is a cumbersome relic of a previous age. Criticism was particularly rife after the controversial election of 2000, when voters in mainly African-American districts within the state of Florida found it more difficult to cast their vote than others. Black voters overwhelmingly support the Democrats, which inevitably led to accusations of bias on behalf of the Republicans. At the time of the election Jeb Bush was governor of Florida, his brother was running for President and two of the Supreme Court had been nominated by the father of the Republican presidential candidate. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court called an end to the Florida recount and effectively handed victory to George W. Bush. Obviously, the decision was all the more political given the fact that Florida was the last state to call and the winner of the sunshine state would earn the mantle of Head of State. The result was perceived along partisan lines. To Democrats, it was deliberate interference in a closely fought election. To Republicans, it is an insult to claim that voters were confused by the system and nothing more than sour-grapes from their opponents.

The Electoral College is very much an invention of a previous age. The founding fathers were fearful of direct democracy and held a predilection towards elitism. The Electoral College was thereby created in order to prevent the tyranny of the majority by facilitating a level of peer review. Delegates can choose which of the candidates is best suited towards the post of President, therefore offering their wisdom and in doing so assuage the will of the majority.

The mechanics of the Electoral College do not sit well in the modern era. Firstly, the use of delegates seems anachronistic given the potential for a rogue (or faithless) elector. This is more than simply a case of semantics, as half of the past 14 presidential elections have witnessed examples of a faithless elector. Under federal law, an elector is not obliged to honor the result (although some states have laws to prevent it). Secondly, the result is not made official until December. In an age where people expect information to be presented in an instant, the delay seems completely unnecessary – particularly as the result is never really in doubt once election night is over. Whilst these are not the only flaws with the Electoral College, they seem to encapsulate the outmoded character of the system. Frankly, not everything bequeathed by the founding fathers is necessarily positive.

There are of course several advantages to the Electoral College. Firstly, it provides an enhanced mandate to the winner. The President can therefore claim to have the support of over 50% of those who voted, as in the case of Obama in 2008 and 2012. The notion of an enhanced mandate is of obvious relevance when seeking to elect a Head of State. By way of comparison, France adopts a second ballot electoral system in order to ensure an enhanced mandate. A proportional system would be entirely unsuitable for the purpose of a presidential election. Another argument in favor of the Electoral College (EC) is that it prevents an urban-centric victory. Candidates must reach out beyond the more populous cities in order to gain victory. Moreover, it strengthens the electoral impact of minorities. As the votes of a given state are an all-or-nothing affair, minorities can provide the crucial edge. At the very least, neither candidate can afford to ignore minority groups in the quest for the White House.

The EC also maintains the federal character of the union. Indeed, the allocation of EC votes is deliberately generous to the smaller states. The system also enables each state to adopt their own way of conducting an election, thereby preserving states’ rights. For instance, Maine and Nebraska allocate EC votes on a slightly different basis to the rest of the country. The EC also isolates the impact of electoral fraud to the state in which it occurs. Finally, it encourages stability through the two-party system. This may be contrasted to the multi-party systems that exist under various types of proportional representation within Europe.

The drawbacks of the Electoral College are easy to identify. Perhaps the most significant is that it can produce a result totally disproportionate to the wishes of the electorate. For instance, in 2012 Obama gained over 60% of the EC based on just over 50% of those who cast their vote. This distortion is however more pronounced when a third party candidate does well (as in 1992 when Clinton gained 69% of the EC based on a mere 43% of the national vote). Clinton also failed to gain a plurality of the national vote in that year. Secondly, the candidates allocate resources towards the big seven states whilst marginalizing the smaller states. The swing states (such as Ohio) also receive a significantly greater level of attention than relatively safe states (such as California or Wyoming).

There are other flaws to consider too. As with any majoritarian system, the EC entails wasted votes. A number of states are either solidly red (such as Utah) or solidly blue (such as Massachusetts). This may well be linked to the problem of voter fatigue, which is itself exacerbated by democratic overload. The EC also perpetuates the two-party system and thereby prevents a minor party candidate (such as Ross Perot in 1992) breaking through. Furthermore, the EC system can at times raise the aforementioned issue of a rogue (or faithless) elector in those states that allow it. Finally, the EC system can produce anomalies. It is entirely possible to win the contest with a lower number of votes on a national basis than the other candidate. This last occurred in the year 2000, when George W. Bush won a highly controversial election by virtue of a decision taken at the Supreme Court level. Throughout our history, the winner of the Electoral College has actually lost the national vote on four separate occasions.

These criticisms have inevitably led to a search for a different method, including a nationwide election in which the whole country acts as one giant constituency. However, the possibility of an alternative mechanism being introduced for electing the Head of State seems remote. The closest the Electoral College came to being overturned dates back to the Bayh-Celler amendment of the late-1960s (which was eventually filibustered in the Senate). More recently, congressmen Gene Green proposed ending the Electoral College for a system that ensured that each delegate votes for the candidate/vice-president who received the majority of the popular vote in the state. As you may already know, there are pressure groups that seek to overhaul the present system. Alas, any proposed change requires cross-party consensus and reaching a bipartisan platform has become increasingly difficult in our divided nation. Red America and blue America often select a media source that best confirms their bias or pre-existing assumptions. Any balanced assessment is thereby discouraged within contemporary society. This ideological polarization is reflected within the two main parties. Both the Republicans and the Democrats have undergone a period of ideological purification since the collapse of the New Deal in the late-1960s. It is increasingly hard to identify liberal North-Eastern Republicans or for that matter conservative Dixiecrats. Moreover, an incumbent is deterred from seeking a bipartisan agreement because they are often more likely to be defeated in a primary than a general election. This observation is particularly pertinent to members of the lower chamber, where congressional districts are brazenly gerrymandered to suit the status quo. Incumbents must engage in ‘over-your-shoulder’ politics, otherwise they will suffer the fate of Senator Richard Lugar in Indiana, Tim Holden in Pennsylvania and state House representative Larry Kump. Lugar had long been classed as a moderate, whereas Holden (as a self-confessed Blue Dog Democrat) always looked vulnerable after the district was redrawn along more liberal lines. In the latter example, Larry Kump was defeated in West Virginia by the 17-year old Saira Blair.