Let The Electoral College Debate Begin - But, With Knowledge
Email This Post
-
Print This Post
-
It is about time for the quadrennial appearance of the latter-day hysterics to reemerge to rant about ending the Electoral College in favor of an array of schemes most often in the name of “fairness” or “modernity” but almost always without even the most feeble notion of its what or why. The story involves the Founders considering several approaches that contrary to popular myth and argument never included taking the selection of a President from the hands of the great unwashed masses ala “Super Delegates” as some assert. In fact nothing could be farther from the truth.Several ways of electing President were proposed including: having Congress do it (that was rejected for fear of corruption, political pandering, and foreign interference through Congress and risking upsetting the balance-of-power among the Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches.); others wanted state legislatures to do it and that was rejected for some of the same reasons; a direct vote was rejected from a fear “favorite sons” would dominate, and big states would simply overpower the smaller, and finally there was the Committee of Eleven that emerged in the Constitutional Convention proposing an indirect election of the President through a College of Electors.
That indirect election can be likened to the Roman Catholic Church’s College of Cardinals selecting the Pope. The original idea was for the most knowledgeable and informed individuals from each State to select the President based solely on merit and without regard to State of origin or political party. That was a permutation of the Centurial Assembly system of the Roman Republic. Under that system, the adult male citizens of Rome were divided, according to their position, into groups of 100 (called Centuries). Each group of 100 was entitled to cast only one vote either in favor or against proposals submitted to them by the Roman Senate. Proponents like it because after all it worked OK for over a thousand years.
In its original shape the Electoral College States were the Centurial Assembly assigned one elector per Senator (always two regardless of the state’s size) and one per member of the House of Representatives and that was parceled out based on population determined in the decennial census. By the way that was based on a compromise achieved among big and smaller states of how to apportion Congress. Each state could figure out how to select electors and that made states happy because they didn’t want the Federal government interfering in their business.
Congressmen and federal employees were specifically forbidden from being electors and electors were required to meet in their own states and not together. They had to vote for two one who could not be from their state. Those votes were sealed and send to the President of the Senate who open and read the totals out loud and whoever got a majority plus one was the President and the next highest became Vice President. If nobody got a majority the House of Representatives voted on the top five candidates with each state’s delegation getting only one vote. If that failed the Senate voted to break a tie among the top two again with the second place becoming vice President.
It worked for four elections and until political parties formed – something the founders hope to avoid. In 1800 Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr (both Democratic-Republicans) took 36 votes in Congress to pick Jefferson President, and a lot of backroom horse trading and bad blood. The 12th Amendment was hastily passed in 1804 requiring each elector cast one vote for President and one for Vice President. There have been myriad statutory changes since. But, it was the excesses, chaos, and paralysis of direct democracy during the French Revolution that solidified the Electoral College system as a workable compromise to see the nation deteriorate into such chaos.
It is imperfect
-
1824: John Quincy Adams received more than 38,000 fewer votes than Andrew Jackson, but neither candidate won a majority of the Electoral College. Adams was awarded the presidency when the election was thrown to the House of Representatives.
- 1876: Nearly unanimous support from small states gave Rutherford B. Hayes a one-vote margin in the Electoral College, despite the fact that he lost the popular vote to Samuel J. Tilden by 264,000 votes. Hayes carried five out of the six smallest states (excluding Delaware).
- 1888: Benjamin Harrison lost the popular vote by 95,713 votes to Grover Cleveland, but won the electoral vote by 65.
- 2000: Al Gore had over half a million votes more than George W. Bush, with 50,992,335 votes to Bush’s 50,455,156. But after recount controversy in Florida and a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Bush was awarded the state by 537 popular votes. Like most states, Florida has a “winner takes all” rule. This means that the candidate who wins the state by popular vote also gets all of the state’s electoral votes. Bush became president with 271 electoral votes.
The Electoral College is therefore a barrier, or a weighed, voting system that is designed to give more power to the states with more votes, but allows for small states to swing an election thereby ensuring the absolute fairness for all Americans the Founders craved and quested to achieve. It is interesting that that this flies in the face of the so-called landed class and gave rise to the aphorism “you can’t vote by acre.”
Democrats continue to lead in states with 200 Electoral Votes while the GOP has the advantage in states with 189. States with 111 Votes are “leaners,” and states with 38 Votes are Toss-Ups. When “leaners” are added, the Democrats lead 260 to 240 A total of 270 electoral votes are needed to win the White House. Twelve states with 149 Electoral Votes are either a pure Toss-Up or just slightly leaning to one party or the other. These are likely to be the early battleground states of Election 2008: Florida (27), Pennsylvania (21), Ohio (20), Michigan (17), Virginia (13), Missouri (11), Wisconsin (10), Colorado (9), Iowa (7), Nevada (5), New Mexico (5), and New Hampshire (4). To see state-by-state results (Click here) .





Comment by Nikki on 27 May 2008:
If the electoral count were such a fair system - why has it so obviously failed more than once to seat the right President… Tilden’s over-whelmingly won the popualar as did Al Gore - The Electoral system is too easy to cheat - RE: Florida has proved this twice. In addition - in disputed elections a candidate should have the right over any state official to demand a recount of the ballots. Also, the Supreme Court should NEVER again be allowed to ever decide a Presidency…This is the job of the Peoples’ Representatives in Congress. All in - get rid of the Electoral College and vote our President into office by popular vote.
Comment by Tabby on 27 May 2008:
Nikki—You are right on. In an Electoral system, our individual votes can be null and void if the Electoral College deems to do so. Voting should be left to the people’s vote.
Comment by Bill - Florida on 27 May 2008:
Nik/Tab: Richard did not say it was fair. Did you read the article or just knee jerk to your politics? We do not and never did have a pure democracy and every politician who panders to the public spreading that inaccurate image is a hypocrite in the bumper sticker, sound bite tradition. Remember that majorities sometimes decide they do not like minorities and unchecked they would legalize really unfair things. For instance, if pure majority democracy of the actual voting voters was always used to pass laws or to make changes to the constitution, someone might introduce a bill or change saying that those who do not register to vote when they turn 18, or do not vote in the last two elections, will lose their right to vote in the next election, what would we eventually devolve into? Go Tilden! Your sacrifice is appreciated!
Comment by Tabby on 27 May 2008:
Bill–I simply stated a fact: “In an Electoral system, our individual votes can be null and void if the Electoral College deems to do so.”
This is why some people, don’t vote. Their thinking is why do we vote if the electoral college has the right to take it away from us. I don’t agree with that thinking at all. Voting is a privilege and a right that we fought for and I believe we should all vote. I vote even if I don’t agree with the electoral college.
Pingback by STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES — IN TENNESSEE on 27 May 2008:
[...] Let The Electoral College Debate Begin - But, With Knowledge - May 26th, 2008 Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Tennessee Misuses Tobacco Settlement FundsTennessee Graded on State Government EfficiencyBribery Activities of Jack AbramoffCutbacks Coming in Tennessee [...]
Comment by Bill - Florida on 27 May 2008:
Tab; Null and Void? Oh, I see, you are confusing an Electoral System like we have with a pure democracy where every votes is always equal to every other vote, which we do not have. When YOU vote in our Electoral System, it IS counted in the way prescribed, but every vote is not equal. Hmm. NOT null and void.
By the way, it will take considerably more than one 51% vote of the registered voters to make a change. We live in a republic form of democracy not a pure democracy where the person who gets the majority of the popular votes would be voted into office, at least until the likely revolution due to intended and blatant legal suppression of the weak, minorities or just those disliked by the majority.
Comment by robert on 5 February 2009:
i thing that the info give is greAT ITS well explaind and i live to love the congress i think its a great idead to kill the bill if you know what i mean i also like the fact that me as a student have the power to express my ideas and i think that some day all my dawgs out their
Comment by robert on 5 February 2009:
i thing that the info give is greAT ITS well explaind and i live to love the congress i think its a great idead to kill the bill if you know what i mean i also like the fact that me as a student have the power to express my ideas and i think that some day all my friends out their HELLOW DUDE