Every year at this time, the NCAA Men’s & Women’s Basketball Tournament reminds us all how democracy is supposed to work. Sixty-four teams (sixty-six, if you count the play-ins) compete in each tournament: win and play again; lose and go home. The last man/woman standing is crowned our National Champion. Simple.
But that’s not the March Madness I’m talking about here. No; it’s Elizabeth Warren’s recent idea to do away with the Electoral College. Is it March Madness or March Genius? Let’s take a look…
The Electoral College convenes every four years for the sole purpose of electing the President and Vice-President of the United States. Each state is entitled to a number of Electors equal to the combined total of that state’s membership in the US Senate and House of Representatives. Additionally, pursuant to the 23rd Amendment to the Constitution, the District of Columbia is entitled to a number of Electors equal to the number of Electors from the least populous state(s) which is currently 3. (The other least populous states are North and South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Alaska, and Hawaii.) That adds to 538 Electors; and absolute majority of 270 Electors is required to win the election.
Additionally, Article II of the US Constitution (Section 1, Clause 2 for those of you who enjoy spending time in the weeds) specifies that the legislature of each state may determine the manner in which its Electors are chosen. After each Presidential election day (the first Tuesday in November or November 3, 2020 if you happen to be counting down), each state counts its popular votes and determines how its Electors will cast their votes. In 2016, Donald Trump received 304 electoral votes, Hillary Clinton received 278. (Three other candidates received electoral votes including Bernie Sanders who received 1 of Hawaii’s electoral votes and Spotted Owl who received 1 of Washington’s.) The irony, of course is that Ms. Clinton won the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes. And therein lies the Electoral rub.
It would seem that the Electoral College is an inherently anti-democratic institution, that it undermines the notion of “one person, one vote.” Proponents of the College argue that it is fundamental to American Federalism and requires candidates to appeal to rural areas as well as to larger urban populations. Opponents criticize the system saying it encourages candidates to focus on a few “swing states” and gives a few states with small populations a disproportionally large influence in national elections. They also rue the fact that the Electoral College may result in a one candidate winning the popular vote but losing the election. They may have a point: that confusing result has already happened twice in this Century (2000 and 2016).
In several polls taken since 1967, a majority of Americans favor with doing away with the Electoral College, calling it anachronistic, a relic of our nation at the time of the Founding Fathers (and Mothers). Yet it remains. Now along comes Ms. Warren’s proposal to abolish the Electoral College because she “wants every vote to matter.” Many agree with her: let the popular vote decide; don’t ‘delegitimize’ an election by declaring a candidate with fewer popular votes the winner.
Ms. Warren’s proposal has its critics, to say the least. Senator Lindsay Graham says Democrats “want rural America to just go away politically.” Senator Marco Rubio thinks the Electoral College is “a work of genius.” Not surprisingly, Mr. Trump defends the College by claiming that “cities would end up running the country…and we don’t want that!”
Which brings me back to the NCAA Basketball Tournament. It’s about clear winners and losers. Score more points and play on. Score fewer points and go home. Simple. But basketball tournaments and national elections in a Federalist Republic are not the same thing. Our Founders knew that the tyranny of the majority was a dangerous beast that had the potential to result in something more akin to mob rule than true democracy. They preferred a system with more checks and balances. The Electoral College may have its conceptual problems but it may also protect us from the beast.
I’ll be right back.
Jamie Kirkpatrick is a writer and photographer with homes in Chestertown and Bethesda. His work has appeared in the Washington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Washington College Alumni Magazine, and American Cowboy magazine. “A Place to Stand,” a book of photographs and essays about Landon School, was published by the Chester River Press in 2015. A collection of his essays titled “Musing Right Along” was published in May 2017; a second volume of Musings entitled “I’ll Be Right Back” was released in June 2018. Jamie’s website is www.musingjamie.com
Michael Brunner says
Steve, could you enlighten us on how the Electoral College system was pro-slavery. Thanks, you’re the best.
Stephen Z. Meehan says
Jamie. Great piece. The Electoral College was one of the many checks and balances the Founders created to protect from the tyranny of the majority whipped up by a charismatic leader with hidden evil intent. If you are comfortable with the Big Four states deciding everything, then you probably don’t care about the Electoral College. A presidential candidate is required to run a 50-state campaign to win. It should not be easy to get elected president. The Electoral College is more important now than ever because of the reach of media . . . and the clandestine efforts of Russia and other countries to influence our elections.
Josep Fick says
Good points .Well…….maybe. I wonder if Ms. Warren would want to abolish the EC if she ends up in the same position as Mr. Bush and Mr. Trump? Highly unlikely as that may be. It’s never ‘fair’ when you ;loose. Gotta blame it on something besides yourself.
I think the Electoral College is like a buzzer-beating three pointer when you are down by two with one second on the clock…….
Instant win!! Ask Duke – they almost lost to the UCF College!!
Besides, the Founding Fathers knew Mr. Gore and Mrs. Clinton would win the popular vote so they invented the EC so they would not be president. Smart guys, huh?
Daniel Menefee says
“Proponents of the College argue that it is fundamental to American Federalism and requires candidates to appeal to rural areas as well as to larger urban populations.”
But it turns out that Rural America has been setting the agenda for the majority in this new century, which I don’t think was the intent of the framers. Their mandate was to protect against centralizing power geographically, or otherwise. The rural heartland’s influence is evident of late in chipping away at women’s reproductive rights — making it harder logistically and legally for women to seek reproductive medical procedures and consults with doctors, among other issues.
“[The EC] gives rural voters more clout than urban ones. When the parties stood for both city and country that bias affected them both. But the Republican Party has become disproportionately rural and the Democratic Party disproportionately urban. That means a red vote is worth more than a blue one.”
—the economist, July 12, 2018
This has given rise to the “tyranny of the minority.” I think the founders wanted to merely protect the minority — not vest more power with it to usurp the majority. Whatever the framers penned is not sacrosanct; it was a good rough draft, with obvious flaws, and we’ve edit their mistakes over time by amendment to fix their screw ups. It’s time make some changes.
Daniel Menefee says
in other words, mend it don’t end it.
Gren Whitman says
What’s unfair about whoever wins the most votes also wins the election?
John Vail says
Ms Warren, spare me please!
If we can’t pass an Equal Rights Amendment, why in the world are we talking about an esoteric amendment to eliminate the Electoral College?
There are far more significant issues to talk about—health care, genuine tax reform, infrastructure building— to talk about in the run-up to the 2020 election.