The Error of the Electoral Collegiophiles
George F. Will recently asserted that the electoral college, like the
constitution, "was not devised by, and should not be revised by,
simple-minded majoritarians." Indeed, the electoral college was a
brilliant 18th century solution to clusters of 18th century problems.There
were three good reasons that the constitutional convention rejected the
idea of direct elections for the presidency. First off, there was no
method of communication that could sufficiently educate voters about
presidential candidates. Secondly, our framers worried that the masses
had neither the education, nor the refinement required to make prudent
decisions. Thirdly, the implementation of national elections would have
upset the balance of power among states. For example, direct
presidential elections would cause the south to lose most of its
political power. Under the electoral college, slaves couldn't vote, but
could be still counted as 3/5 man when deciding the number of
Representatives and electors for states.Obviously, the 18th
century argument no longer applies in our era of telecommunications and
universal suffrage. The only other argument heard from the
electoral-collegiophiles is essentially Burkean. So the argument goes,
changing the rules for electing presidents would shift entire political
"solar system" in ways hard to foresee. With candidates concentrating
on votes instead of states, campaign strategies might change for the
worse. In otherwords, it assumes that the old is better by the simple
fact that its old. I for one don't wake up in cold sweats after
nightmares in which the American public, not the electoral college,
elected our president. So why abolish the electoral college? Here are
three good reasons: First off, the
electoral college operates under a winner-take-all method: a state's
majority, no matter how thin, gets all of the state's electors. This
causes millions of votes to be effectively uncountedSecondly,
the electoral college discourages millions of Americans from voting. If
a voter supports a red candidate in a blue state, they will probably
not waste their time voting. Moreover, states have no incentive to
increase voter turnout. A state's delegates cast the same number of
electoral votes no matter how many people actually vote.Finally,
the electoral college favors voters from rural states over voters from
populous states. Electoral votes are not allocated according to
population. Below is the number of electoral votes given to every
million people by state:
Americans should ask themselves why a vote in Wyoming should count three times more than a vote in Michigan. Furthermore, it bears noting that no other democracy has a body that is similar to the electoral college. And just think: if we abolish the electoral college we will never hear about Ohio, swing voters, or blue and red states again. That alone would be worth the effort.
- Wyoming: 13.4 electoral votes/million people
- North Dakota: 10.4 electoral votes/million people
- Michigan: 4.2 electoral votes/million people
- Illinois: 4.6 electoral votes/million people