By Leslie Feldman
Ever hear the saying “be careful what you wish for because it may come true?” Apparently director Michael Moore didn’t. Little did he realize when he asked for an agreement by the presidential candidates that whoever got the popular vote would be president he was asking for four more years of George W. Bush. He was also asking for something that is unconstitutional because American presidents are elected by the Electoral College, not the popular vote.
The Electoral College may seem arcane and archaic but its purpose was clear to the founders. They wanted to slow down the mechanism of government and cool down the passions of the people, like putting a pot holder between a hand and a hot pot. In Federalist no. 68 Alexander Hamilton said that by having electors meet separately in states the “detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments…” than a big group assembled together.
The Electoral College is based on a fundamental mistrust of people. A major consideration in establishing the Electoral College was the fear the founders and colonial elite had of the “excess of democracy” namely the “mass of people who seldom judge or determine right” (Hamilton, quoted in “Framing the Constutition” by Charles Beard) They saw the Electoral College as a method of indirect election that would give the people some input into electing the President but not absolute discretion, so the Electoral College would be a buffer between the “volatile masses” and the mechanism of government, a safety valve that would diffuse some of the impetuosity of the people. Hamilton concluded that a group of electors, not the masses, would “be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to so complicated an investigation” (Fed. no. 68) The Electoral College guaranteed that “the election of the President is pretty well guarded” and though “it be not perfect, it is at least excellent”
Therefore, a group of electors would choose the President. Each state has electoral votes based on its population. Populated states like Texas and California have more electoral votes than states like Wyoming with small populations, and equivalent to the number of representatives and senators in the state. Who are the electors? A shadowy group of “party loyalists” who are known to the state’s party leaders. Having lost two congressional districts when the census was taken, New York now has 31 electoral votes, based on 29 congressional districts plus two senators. But there are really 62 New York state electors–31 Democratic electors and 31 Republican electors. Because it is a “winner take all” system the candidate who wins the popular vote in New York receives all 31 electoral votes. When you vote for president you are really voting for 31 Republican or Democratic electors who meet in the state capitals to cast their votes. The votes are then transmitted to the Senate and read by the President of the Senate (who is the Vice President of the U.S.) in January.
What if an elector decides to change his or her vote between Election Day and the time the electors submit their votes? That is called a “faithless elector” and there is not much you can do about it short of making it illegal. Sometimes electors abstain and refuse to submit their votes. This may cause a candidate to get fewer electoral votes than counted on. People criticize the “winner take all” system (the fact that whoever wins a state wins all the electoral votes, except in Maine and Nebraska) but voters in Colorado just resoundingly voted down a proposal to split electoral votes between or among candidates. People say the electoral system enables a candidate to focus only on heavily populated states because to get elected one only needs 11 or 12 states in the Electoral College (Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, California, New Jersey, etc.) This causes candidates to neglect the country in favor of the city. But 2000 proved that untrue- New Mexico’s five electoral votes looked very desirable in a close election. Just ask Al Gore. The Electoral College is also supposed to prevent victory based on regional support.
The Constitution would have to be amended to get rid of the Electoral College and that won’t happen. Some things the framers intended didn’t work and the Constitution has been amended to address them, but the Electoral College is not one of them. We make fun of the Electoral College– a cartoon strip by Hilary Price shows a student writing a letter to the Dean: “Dear Dean, I am interested in your program but I want to know how you can afford a campus in all 50 states and why you just have parties every four years?” Her mother asks “what are you doing?” She replies “applying to the Electoral College.” Though we find it a source of consternation and humor, the Electoral College works effectively today keeping federalism, the division of power between the state and national governments, strong and vibrant with each state like a patch in a quilt playing a role in electing the President.
If I could make one recommendation it would be for the number of votes in the Electoral College (538) to be an odd number (by giving Washington DC 4 instead of 3 votes) to prevent a tie! Had George W. Bush and John Kerry each received 269 votes (which could have happened–Bush had 269 votes when we went to sleep on Nov. 2 and 269 when we woke up Nov. 3) there would have been a tie…but let’s not even go there. Maybe Michael Moore was right. n