The Power of the States: My defense of the Electoral College

Many people associate a presidential election day with confusion, long lines and dangling chadds. Some experts claim that our most recent election ills are due to an old, outdated mode of electing our chief executive. The Founding Fathers were not only wise but prophetic in setting up the Electoral College. The Electoral College protects the representation of the smaller states while recognizing the importance and influence of the large ones. The Electoral College is not only relevant to today but is essential to our republic.
The founding fathers of our country were as wise as they were good. At the founding of our republic our fore-fathers knew that every individual had to be equally represented. If the authority was vested solely in a majority of votes who is there for the minority? After establishing this new chief executive called “president” how would he be elected? Was the power of our federal constitution vested in the large population centers or is it vested in the states? How could the big states be recognized without infringing on the rights of the small ones?
In his wisdom James Madison the father of our constitution found the ‘sweet spot‘.
Here is article 2 section 2 of our U.S. Constitution. “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled…” So the founders established a system where the each state is awarded a number of points based on the number of it’s representatives and senators. Each state would award all of it’s electoral votes to whichever candidate wins the state-wide popular vote. The number needed to win would be dependent on the number of representatives. This system rewarded the large states for their massive populations while protecting the representation of the small ones. A candidate would have to work for every electoral vote in every state.
Many critics point to recent election blunders such as we saw in 2000 as further evidence that we should do away with article 2 section 2. Moving to a popular vote would rip the power from the states and bestow it instead on the large population areas. Imagine if we changed our law and decided instead on a popular vote. What would happen to Rhode Island, Wyoming and Montana? Would they not become victims to the whims of the voters in California and New York? A popular vote would encourage special interest groups in bigger states to dictate policy for the smaller ones. Elections hold presidents accountable! Why would a president listen to a people who had no say in his election? Would a candidate for president care about the needs of Nebraska if He only needs the votes of the four biggest states? A.B.C. News policy analyst George Will wrote an article entitled “Defending the Electoral College” for A.B.C. News online. In it Mr. Will says the following; “Furthermore, choosing presidents by electoral votes is an incentive for candidates to wage truly national campaigns, building majorities that are geographically as well as ideologically broad. Consider: Were it not for electoral votes allocated winner-take-all, would candidates campaign in, say, West Virginia?”.
Other critics complain that a candidate could receive the popular vote while losing the more important electoral vote. In truth this only happened four times in our history and two of those example are ‘iffy’ at best. In 1924 Andrew Jackson had 38,149 more votes than John Quincy Adams but the contest remained deadlocked so the House of Representatives elected Adams (but not to worry Jackson fans he would beat Adams for the presidency in 1828). In 1876 Rutherford B. Hayes fought bitterly for weeks with Samuel Tilden over 20 electoral votes both sides claimed belonged to their candidate. Hayes would eventually be awarded the prize. The 1888 election involved massive fraud involving 90,000 votes. In 2000 President George W. Bush lost the popular vote to former Vice President Al Gore but even that is debated by some who disapprove of how those allusive absentee ballots were finally counted. Contrary to current belief there has never been a huge ‘chasm’ between popular vote winners and those who won the electoral college.

Many would say that voters are disenfranchised under the current system. What would happen to the Mid-western farmer if we moved to a national popular vote? Wouldn’t he be disenfranchised?
The Electoral College is the best system for our form of government. It recognizes the value of every individual by representing his state regardless of it’s size.



Further Reading: A.B.C. News online (abcnews.go.com) George Will’s article “George Will Defends the Electoral College” written Nov. 2nd
Article 2 Section2 of the U.S. Constitution
“This Nation (an online site about politics and culture) found @http://www.thisnation.com//ThisNation.com is researched and written by Jonathan Mott, Ph.D.
Online encyclopedia Wikepedia. Found @en.wikipedia.org