In defence of the Electoral College 3

Part Three: Why the Electoral College is Good for America

In the preceding two posts of this series, I have shown how the focus of the 1948 and 1960 presidential campaigns on large northern states produced better outcomes for those Americans whose power was diluted in other organs of governmental power at the time – city-dwellers, racial and ethnic minorities, and unionised workers. In this part, I will make the case for the Electoral College, and recommend a few small changes which would improve its operation.

*Direct election would punish states with lower turnout (which is usually caused by having proportionally more poor and minorities – Hawaii, California, and Texas currently have the lowest rates of turnout in presidential polls). Under the current system, 436 of the 538 votes are distributed according to states’ total population, which includes non-citizens, those under 18, those not registered to vote, and those disenfranchised by various state laws – all of these groups are poorer and/or less white than the American people at large. The other 102 electoral votes do tilt the scales back to small, majority-white states, but this effect is outweighed by the effect of large states casting their entire electoral votes en bloc. The Electoral College thus ensures that a state’s influence on the presidential contest is not decreased by having a large minority population, or by random events which lower election-day turnout (such as hurricanes or uncompetitive down-ballot races).

*The Electoral College allows historically oppressed and marginalised groups the chance to be the swing voters: from Irish-Americans punishing the Democrats for Woodrow Wilson’s anglophilia in 1920, to Harry Truman’s appeals to African-Americans and Jews in 1948, to Kennedy’s success among Catholics in 1960, to non-whites providing the margin of victory in a few states for Obama in 2008, minorities concentrated in large states have benefited from being able to shift sizable blocs of electoral votes. Although diverse states such as New York, California, and Illinois are no longer swing states, Florida’s Cuban-Americans were pivotal in 2012, and Texas’ Latino population may be crucial in future election cycles.

*The Electoral College punishes candidates who attain large margins in a few states (which usually results from voter suppression or a lack of two-party competition). Historically, the Democratic lock on the South (itself due to Jim Crow) meant that scores of southern votes were wasted, giving the party the freedom to pursue swing voters in large northern states without risking many southern electoral votes. Direct election would have forced Democratic nominees to pander to segregationism, lest they risk a decrease in their popular vote totals in Dixie. Moreover, the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860 (with 39% of the popular vote) was made possible by his winning of narrow pluralities or majorities in almost all northern states.

*‘Faithless electors’ could prevent constitutional crises. There are two advantages to having 538 warm bodies, instead of relying on an automatic tally of electoral votes. In the case of a presidential or vice-presidential candidate dying (as happened with Horace Greeley in 1872 and John Sherman in 1912), the electors could switch their votes to the party’s new nominee. In the case of a 1968-style situation, in which an extremist third party candidate holds the balance of power, the major parties could trade electoral votes to put one of them over the top, thereby forming an analogue to the ‘grand coalitions’ used by European parties to keep the far-right out of power.

The Electoral College could do with a few changes, however:

*End the malapportionment of electoral votes, either by eliminating the 102 votes and having a 436-member College, or by increasing the size of the House so as to overwhelm the effect of the 102 ‘Senatorial’ votes.

*Bring back the ‘long ballot’. Between 1940 and 1980, all states adopted the ‘short ballot’, under which voters vote for a ticket and are considered to have cast one vote for each elector pledged to that ticket – in most states, the electors don’t even appear on the ballot. A return to voting for individual electors would allow voters to split their votes between two or more presidential candidates, and increase awareness of the electors’ role.

*Repeal state laws punishing ‘faithless electors’. In twenty-four states, electors could be fined or jailed for failing to vote for a dead candidate or for voting for another candidate in order to thwart an extremist third party candidate holding the balance of power.

*Bring back electoral fusion. Imagine if Al Gore had been able to offer spots on Democratic slates to electors pledged to Ralph Nader, and to have those slates appear on both the Democratic and Green ballot lines. The Nader electors could vote for their candidate, but could switch to Gore if needed to give him 270. (Fusion slates were used by the Greenbackers and Populists, and also by Oklahoma Republicans in 1912, who slated pro-Roosevelt electors in an attempt to fend off the Bull Moose threat.)

*Bring back unpledged electors. Although unpledged electors are most associated with the defence of Jim Crow in the 1944, 1956, 1960, and 1964 elections, they could be used by any ideological group. Instead of backing Ron Paul or Gary Johnson, for example, the libertarian movement could nominate unpledged slates; if victorious, their votes could be traded to one of the major-party nominees in return for an end to the War on Drugs or an end to drone strikes.

The Electoral College is part of what made America great. I can only hope that when that glorious day comes when Australia becomes a republic, we see fit to copy this magnificent institution.