There has been much discussion lately, as there always is in presidential election years, about abolishing the Electoral College. I am not in favor of that, since I believe that the EC system protects against, for instance, a candidate winning by only appealing to the urban voters.
However, why do we still need actual people in the role of casting a state’s electoral votes? In nearly every election, at least one elector will cast a vote that doesn’t follow his state’s will. For instance, I think one elector in '88 voted for Lloyd Bentsen instead of for any of the presidential candidates.
Why aren’t the electoral votes assigned directly as determined by the laws of each state and the election in the state, without relying on actual living electors? It would save us the suspense of wondering if, after the popular vote is settled, any electors will break their pledge and toss the election in another unforseen direction.
Stuff between the quote lines originally posted by Saltire; stuff between the quotations posted by Monty.
Most of the stuff advanced comes from folks who never realized that they don’t, and never did, have the right to vote for either President or Vice-President. Glad to see that you’re not of that crowd!
[quote]
I am not in favor of that, since I believe that the EC system protects against, for instance, a candidate winning by only appealing to the urban voters.*
Nor am I in favour of eradicating the Electoral College. It works and it serves its purpose. That purpose is as you just stated above.
Personally, I think this is the crux of the issue. Is an Elector a machine, a petty functionary; or is he someone elected to a Federal Office? If he’s a functionary, then no problem–do away with the human element. If he’s an office holder, as a Senator is, then allow him to exercise the office to which he was elected.
Couple of points here: (1) The actual election (Electoral College) is decided on the basis of a majority vote; not a plurality. If we were to change as you described above, then the state would have to run into run-off/tie-breaker elections.
(2) Are the State laws requiring the human Electors to vote a certain way constitutional? I don’t believe they are as this is a Federal Office, not a State Office. Can a State Legislature dictate to the Representatives and Senators how they must vote on any issues? The same should and, I believe, does apply to the office of Elector.
(3) There’s also the interesting little bit in the Constitution about each State’s Electors being required to vote for a President and Vice-President one of whom is not from that State. I think that should be scrapped but the rest of the system should remain as is.
I agree with Monty that the part about the requirement about not having a president and vice-president from the state being not particularly important today.
That part was tossed in the Consitution because the Framers thought that if it weren’t the electors would just vote for two people from their own state.
With improved communications and decreased regionalism, having a president and VP from the same state is no big deal.
I would agree with the idea of making the electoral vote automatic. I also think the electoral votes should be split up as Maine does it–by Congressional district, with the overall winner in the state taking the two votes that correspond to the Senators. In effect, each popular vote would be for two contests–one for the district electoral vote, and one for the two state-wide votes.
(No, I don’t know who would have won this year with that system. And, yes, I realize that it would make it easier for third-party candidates to gain a few electoral votes, and in a close election prevent a majority.)
Which is exactly why it doesn’t work: the power of the urban vote gets eradicated totally in comparison with the rural vote. As if it isn’t already less.
Well, they’re not, because the constitution says that there need to be electors. Why does the constitution say that?
In general, Americans at the end of the 20th century seem to have a lot of faith in democracy. We believe that voting is a right, that everyone should vote, and that everyone has, and should have, an equal voice.
These were not principles that the founders shared. In the eyes of most of them, democracy was dangerous. It led to mobs, it led to factions, and it led to the rights of the minority and the dissident being trampled. Most of them saw the average citizen as ignorant of the needs of the country. Therefore, the founders set up a system of government where the average person (well, average white male landholder) would only have a direct impact on one federal body, the House of Representatives. The Senate would be selected by the state legislatures. The President would be picked by electors chosen by the state legislatures, and the justices of the Supreme Court would be selected by the President, and voted on by the Senate.
Should the system be changed? Maybe. (I know, that’s not much of a contribution to Great Debates, but it’s important to have some background info.)
The small population states gain enormous power by having electoral votes (usually taken by the Republicans). No Consitutional Amendment is going to pass that is seen as reducing the power of so many small population states.
The OP was about replacing the individual persons with an automatic vote, not about any power shift. I happen to agree with it - why should voters be disenfranchised by a “faithless elector” ?
To answer another objection: Yes, the Constitution requires electors, but it can be amended. If there were no change in the allocation method, it’s hard to see how anyone could object.
Regarding the Maine-Nebraska system, which I also agree with: They have the authority to do that on their own, and the US Constitution doesn’t prevent it. We could do that nationwide if the 48 other state legislatures decided to, Congress and the US Constitution notwithstanding.
Electors are necessary for precisely the reason that almost happened this year: death of a candidate. Should a candidate die either after an election but before the electoral vote is taken, or should the candidate die before the election but too late to make a reasoned choice about replacement, the electors serve as a check on the choice of replacement: the party in question could not circumvent the basic will of its members because the electors could always refuse to accept the proffered replacement.
For example, suppose Mr. Chaney dies instead of having only a mild heart attack. Mr. Bush forces the Republican party officials to rubberstamp a replacement candidate for the office (say, just to be silly, Pat Buchanan). If there were no electors, the people who voted for the Republican candidates would have no check on this choice. With electors, they have such a check; the electors could refuse to accept that choice and insist on choosing someone else. Food for thought.
As for the idea of scrapping ‘winner takes all’, it ain’t a-gonna happen. Republicans AND Democrats alike understand that this is how they avoid third-party candidates winning potentially crucia electoral votes. Maine and Nebraska don’t worry about it because Maine is maverick about a number of things and Nebraska is as well when it comes to institutions of government (note that Nebraska has the only current unicameral legislative branch).
Granted that this is a possibility, and has actually happened with a losing candidate (1872–Horace Greeley). But with an automatic electoral vote, there is no gap–in your example, Cheney is already Vice President-Elect when he expires. Presumably, Bush would then have to fill the vacancy as per the 25th Amendment–by nomination approved by majorities of the House and Senate–rather than by action of the Republican National Committee.
Yeah, I know. I have occasional attacks of whimsy.
It seems to me that there’s no functional difference between the Electoral College and the no-electors state vote you propose. Given that, it doesn’t seem so bad for there to be some ceremonial role that party hacks can be given so they don’t end up appointed to a useful office.
FWIW, and from the safety of the far side of the Pacific, I ran an exercise to compare the result of the Electoral College on a winner takes all voting basis versus proportional with preferences.
Now preference voting is a foreign concept to the US situation, there are many variants and it requires some assumptions to make it work. So please consider this as fuzzy maths by a keen amateur and I’ll take points of order and defer to any seasoned professional. The votes were taken as at 10/11/2000.
With winner takes all, first past the post:
Bush 271
Gore 267
With proportional voting with preferences:
On the basis of primary votes
Bush 235
Gore 233
Nader 3 (2 in CA, 1 in NY)
This leaves 67 electoral votes to be allocated on the basis of preferences to determine the final result.
Bush 263
Gore 264
Nader 11 (the extra 8 votes coming as 1 in FL from Democrat preferences, IL (GOP), MA (DEM), MI (DEM), NJ (GOP), OR (DEM), TX (GOP)
By any measure or voting system, an extraordinarily tight election.
