Stumble it!The Electoral College from Phil for Humanity
posted in Philosophy, Politics, Society by themaiden |I typically argue for an adherence to the the ideals codified in the original Constitution of the United States. I think that document outlines the best governmental apparatus ever constructed by humans, and tampering with it is a dangerous thing. That said, it is not sacrosanct, and sometimes tampering with it is the right thing to do. Cases in point would be the amendments granting greater freedoms to women and to minorities. Then again, these amendments didn’t so much alter the Constitution as they did force it into consistency with itself, and with its idealogical parent, the Declaration of Independence.
Conversely, some meddling has been a mistake. Originally, for example, the President and vice-President ran separately, so to speak. The presidential candidate with the most votes became president, while the first runner up became vice-president, regardless of party affiliation. This arrangement caused significant friction at the White House and was quickly abandonned. This was a mistake. Abandonning that original system removed an important, if perhaps accidental, check on the concentration of power in the Executive Branch.
Another detail, though, has been preserved, but deserves meddling.
Despite what most Americans believe, they do not directly vote for their president and vice-president, but instead Americans vote for who they wish their state… to vote for the presidency.
Phil is talking about the system of electing Presidents via the Electoral College, a little discussed electoral mechanism which reduces the people’s vote to a mere suggestion. As Phil explains, in his quick and dirty critique of the system, votes cast at the polls don’t actually elect the president. The president is elected by a body known as the Electoral College. Votes cast at the polls serve as suggestions to this body– suggestions. In more than half the States in the Union, electors can cast votes that run run counter to the popular vote.
Phil also analyzes a second problem with the system, that the electoral college unequally weights votes. Phil doesn’t mention that the electors are not themselves elected by popular vote but are nominated by political parties in each of the states, nor does he mention that these nominations are not consistent across the States.
Presidential Electors are nominated by their state political parties in the summer before the Popular Vote on Election Day. Each state provides its own means for the nomination of Electors. In some states, such as Oklahoma, the Electors are nominated in primaries the same way that other candidates are nominated. Other states, such as Virginia and North Carolina, nominate Electors in party conventions. In Pennsylvania, the campaign committees of the candidates name their candidates for Presidential Elector (an attempt to discourage faithless Electors). All states require the names of all Electors to be filed with the Secretary of State (or equivalent) at least a month prior to election day.
On election day, voters cast ballots for slates of Presidential Electors pledged to the candidates for president and vice president. The party that wins a state elects its entire slate of Electors. (Note the two exceptions in the following paragraph.) At the time of the state canvass of the vote, the Secretary of State (or equivalent) signs a special form called the Certificate of Ascertainment which sets forth the people elected to the office of Presidential Elector, along with the number of votes cast for every party’s slate of Elector nominees. These Certificates of Ascertainment are forwarded to the Office of the Vice President to be used to verify that the people who cast the electoral votes are in fact the people who were elected for that purpose.
Two states elect the Presidential Electors with a slightly different method. Maine and Nebraska elect two Electors by a statewide ballot and choose their remaining Electors by congressional district. The method has been used in Maine since 1972 and Nebraska since 1996, though neither has split its electoral votes in modern elections.
United States Electoral College
The process for selecting electors varies throughout the United States. Generally, the political parties nominate electors at their State party conventions or by a vote of the party’s central committee in each State. Electors are often selected to recognize their service and dedication to their political party. They may be State elected officials, party leaders, or persons who have a personal or political affiliation with the Presidential candidate. Then the voters in each State choose the electors on the day of the general election. The electors’ names may or may not appear on the ballot below the name of the candidates running for President, depending on the procedure in each State.
As Phil notes, the reasons for the existence of the Electoral College are a bit obscure. He concludes that, the framers chose the Electoral College system because, quoting Alexander Hamilton, “A small number of persons, selected by their fellow citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.” I’d say that is a fair assessment. Much of our constitution is a check against the tyrrany of the mob, something the founders feared as much as they feared the rise of a monarchy.
I sympathize with that fear, in large part. The French, following the French Revolution, implemented a largely unchecked direct democracy with disastrous results. Direct voting tends to lead to rapid change, and rapid change means incautious change. It means that whim not sober reason takes the reins, and takes the reins even before debate can really be started. Hence, the complicated mix of governmental agencies that make up the US government, and which slow the processes of government. It seems to me that the Electoral College was born of fears similar to those that motivated our checked and balanced government, but in the case of the College the founders were misguided. They did not create a check on popular rule. They created a divorce from it, a sharp break with it. That was a mistake.
Forcing Electors to vote in compliance with the popular vote would go a long way towards correcting that error, as would, alternately, allowing the electors the freedom to vote as they will, but converting the position to a publically elected post and forcing each elector to campaign for the position. This latter would conform better to Hamilton’s vision of “A small number of persons, selected by their fellow citizens from the general mass…” Other solutions, such as allowing Congress or the State Legislatures to vote in the President, would not be an improvement as such would erode the separation of powers between the branches.
Ultimately though, I’d argue for a simple, direct popular election of the President, for two main reason. First, the President is the nation’s figurehead and wields an enormous amount of power. The people deserve a say in who holds that position, and the people deserve more than a nominal say, more than a superficial input into the process. Secondly, the president is the outstanding symbol of democracy. That the office is not filled via a clear democratic process is shameful.
Popularity: 2%
