Electoral College Problems

Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution mandates that the President be elected by means of an electoral college. Each state is allowed a certain number of "electors" (the state's number of Representatives plus its Senators), who then vote for the President. The electors vote based on the state's distribution of the popular vote. Most state constitutions award votes on a winner-take-all basis. For instance, if two-thirds of a state's public vote for a Democrat and the other third votes for a Republican, and the state has 6 electoral votes, then all 6 of that state's votes go to the Democratic candidate.

Similarly, U.S. Senatorial elections were originally conducted exclusively by state legislators. The public directly elected the state legislators, who then directly elected that state's Senators.

The electoral college was initially conceived as an integral part of the U.S. Constitution. Its intentions were to resolve inter-state disputes about power based on geographical and regional differences. In addition, however, it was blatantly distrustful and alarmingly paternalistic towards the American populace, not to mention being flat-out undemocratic. The electoral college (and Constitutional provisions which prevented direct Senatorial elections), at least in part, was aimed at preventing the general public from having any direct power in Presidential or Senatorial elections, for fear of the "uneducated masses" having any direct political power. The public merely elected delegates to the electoral college, who then proceeded to actually elect the President or Senators.

The Constitution has been amended to allow for the direct elections of Senators. But, to this day, American elections are not truly democratic, for there are no direct Presidential elections.

The electoral college's continued existence has and will continue to have numerous detrimental effects on American politics and government. The first and foremost problem is that it deprives American citizens of a full voice in choosing their President. Because many state constitutions award electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis, all individual votes become meaningless: each state gets a certain number of electoral votes, but for the Presidential election itself, individual votes are not even tallied.

In addition, each vote is not counted equally. The electoral college votes that each state is allocated are based on its number of Represenatives plus Senators. But, since each state, regardless of its size, has two Senators and at least one Representative, the vote of citizens from smaller states (in terms of population) is worth substantially more than somebody's vote from a larger state.

These consequences reach far beyond simple "fairness" issues. Too many times in American history, the electoral college has single-handedly defeated the purpose of democracy in this country. Since the first presidential election, there have been more than a dozen instances in which somebody has been elected President without a majority of votes, and, in a handful of particularly awful moments, the official winner in the electoral college's election was actually defeated in the popular election by another candidate. (See some of the major electoral college disasters)

Additionally, the electoral college acts as a major stumbling block for third party candidates. Approximately 20 "third" parties of varying prominence exist in the U.S., most of which the vast majority of Americans probably have not even heard. Not too impressive a showing for the country that prides herself on an extremely diverse and participatory political culture.

None of these parties have ever seriously contended with Republicans or Democrats in Presidential elections. In fact, even the most serious third party contender in recent memory has not been particularly serious. In 1992 a Reform Party candidate, Texas billionaire Ross Perot, won nearly 12% of the popular vote. But the percentage of votes that he won in "official" tallies? Zero. For despite his significant victories in the popular vote, he failed to win a majority of a state and thus was not awarded a single electoral vote.

The electoral college has other, more indirect, impacts on the fate of third party candidates. Due to their repeated (and inevitable, under the current system) defeats, any momentum is quickly lost, for few will vote for a party that never wins. Not surprisingly, then, in the 1996 Presidential elections, Perot's popular vote winnings were cut approximately in half.

But, even in principle, the electoral college is not worth saving. Americans feel such euphoric pride for their "democracy" for a reason. It represents much that we value in government and, to a degree, in life -- freedom, control over our future, and concern with the fate of others. The electoral college violates what should be considered a fundamental right (at least in this country): the right to self-governance, a right on which this nation is built.

The public and its attitudes have changed since the framing of the Constitution. The American "democracy" has existed for over 200 years, and citizens are ready, as they have been for decades, if not centuries, to finally control their own country. Enough is enough!