Every electoral year, the debate over the Electoral College seems to renew itself and gain added traction. This past election was no different, though given the current state of affairs in the United States, in the mist of one of the most politically polarized periods in the 246-year history of the republic, the conversation has taken on a much central and greater importance. Not surprisingly, much of the debate is driven by lack of understanding of the electoral college, and its foundational purpose and continued importance in the preservation of the American republic-a condition that has only been made worse by mainstream media and the unfiltered spaces of social media.
Sean Wilentz, Professor of American History at Princeton University, explains that the Founding Fathers and Framers of our Constitution were divided over how the young nation should elect its executive. There were some who understood the importance of a strong executive, to be the leader of the government. Others on the other hand, were weary of giving one man, too much power, whereby they might find themselves having to deal with a situation similar to that from which they had removed themselves, just a few years prior, in their quest for independence from tyrannical King George III of Great Britain.
Wilentz writes that while “Some of the ablest and most influential delegates, including James Madison, were in favor of a system in which the executive would be elected directly by the people, the majority of the convention “rejected direct election” because they believed that the people were not capable of deciding on such an important matter. After much debate, both sides were able to reach a compromise which would offer some protection from the ills of direct democracy, while still providing room for popular sovereignty.
Though the history of the Electoral College is too long and far too complex to discuss in this short essay, it is worth noting that the Electoral College has its constitutional foundations in the 12th and 23rd amendments of the Constitution. The 12th Amendment outlines the procedural nature of the Electoral College, while the 23rd Amendment, grants the District of Columbia, proportional electoral votes, for the purpose of electing the President.
What is the foundational purpose of the Electoral College, and why does it continue to be very important in the preservation of the American republic? The foundational purpose of the electoral college was to provide for a republican remedy to the inherent pitfalls of direct democracy. The Framers believed that having a group of electors; each chosen by their respective states, who would themselves, not be members of government, nor elected representatives in congress, would greatly reduce the chances of partisan manipulation or electoral fraud.
The Electoral College was also designed to ensure that the smaller states of the Union would not be unfairly overshadowed by the larger states (in terms of population), and in any given election, could be just as important to the outcome, as would a large State. This is because under the Electoral College, each state is granted a total number of votes, equal to the number of representatives in the House of Representatives, plus two more votes for each of its two Senators in the Senate; with no state having less than three (including the District of Columbia).
Under this system, a state like Wyoming, though much smaller in population, has a more equitable voice when it comes to electing the President. Otherwise, States like California and Texas, whose populations are fifty to sixty times that of Wyoming, would naturally always enjoy an unfair and insurmountable advantage over smaller states, in influencing the election of a President. This scenario concerned the Framers. They feared that under such a system, presidential candidates would have little incentive to tend to the needs of the smaller states and thus, would only concern themselves with campaigning and trying to capture the votes of states with large populations.
Still, there are critics of the Electoral College who argue that the Electoral College is not democratic. They point to the “winner take all” feature of the Electoral College, because it has produced a scenario where a candidate can win the popular vote, but lose the election in the electoral vote. This is because with the exception of Maine and Nebraska (who have a proportional system to allocate their electoral votes), in the other 48 states, the candidate who wins the popular vote in that State, is awarded all of the electoral votes for that State, while the votes of the losing candidate are-for all intents and purposes-discarded.
Critics contend that this system is inherently undemocratic. Yet, these critics seem to forget how the Electoral College came to be. The Electoral College was the result of a compromise between those states who wanted the President elected by Congress, and those states who were lobbying for election by popular vote. The result was the Electoral College, which also ensured that states with smaller populations would be equitably represented in the election of the president. This is why the Electoral College exists only for the purpose of electing the President. Every other candidate for public office in the United States (with minor exceptions) is elected directly by popular vote.
Why then, did the Framers insist on this "unique" system, for electing their President? The Framers were very weary of a national government becoming so powerful that it would trample on states' sovereignty. Therefore, they wanted to ensure that the system for electing the President would produce a President who represented the entire Union, not just the larger states or a handful of states. The Framers were also concerned about the dangers of "factions" as noted by James Madison (the principal author of the Constitution) in Federalist 10. The Electoral College ensures that the candidate elected enjoys "national" support from the citizenry, not just support from citizens of a sector of the country or from a few states who may have large populations.
One idea that has gained more traction lately is whether the Electoral College should be replaced by the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. However, this argument fails to consider that under the NPV Interstate Compact, the "will of the people" in in small states like Mississippi, Nebraska, Colorado, Rhode Island, will become irrelevant, and the electoral outcome will be decided by the larger states. California, Texas, and New York, will ultimately decide every presidential election. This de facto tyranny of the majority could jeopardize the sustainability of the union and the republic-precisely what the founding fathers and the framers feared and wanted so much to avoid.
No comments:
Post a Comment