The Electrical College

For the record, yes, I'm kidding. Now that Joe Biden has been "elected" President, maybe we will forget about the Electoral College for a while. Maybe not. The Electoral College has been the object of a great deal of criticism, especially for the last sixty or more years. It is "undemocratic," "outmoded," and "just not fair." (No, I'm not going to get started on that word, "fair.") The election of Presidents was among the last of the issues settled by the Constitutional Convention in 1787. That's because there was a great deal of concern about how to choose such an important office holder. Of course there was a call for what we call today "a direct popular vote," what James Madison called "an immediate appointment of the people." But there were many other proposals, too. Some wanted state governors to pick the President. Others called for Congress or even just the Senate to choose. In the end, the Electoral College was adopted. It was a compromise, but it also addressed the concerns many of the Founding Fathers had. Now, there is a serious movement afoot to abolish the Electoral College. Some have called for a Constitutional amendment. I think that is unlikely to happen. A more serious threat is a movement called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. If I read this correctly, if adopted, the Electoral College would not be abolished. But states electors would be required to ignore the popular vote within their individual states and vote for whichever candidate had the most popular national votes. Since states, by the Constitution are permitted to select electors in their own ways, "Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the State legislature thereof might direct, a number of Electors....." state legistlatures, that is individual states, can enact the NPV. It would seem this would be fruitless--unless enough states to total 270 Electoral Votes agree to the NPV initiative. Then, in effect, the Electoral College would be emasculated. (Can I still use that term?) In 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016 Presidents were elected although their opponents had more popular votes nationwide. Plus, more than a dozen other times, Presidents won with a plurality, not a majority, of popular votes. (Lincoln was one of them, receiving just under 40% of the popular vote in 1860. Due to a three-way race in 1992, Bill Clinton got 43% of the popular vote.) The attacks on the Electoral College today are as vociferous as ever. We should tread carefully in considering this. The Electoral College is there for a purpose. Critics will point to "the will of the people," that is, that the Electoral College has proven in at least five elections to be "undemocratic." (No, I don't agree that "We aren't a democracy." Yes, we are. We just aren't a direct democracy. The US is an indirect republican or representative democracy. Those who claim otherwise overlook the opening three words of the Constitution. The Preamble reads, "We the people....." It could easily have said, as some of the Founders desired, "We the states..." or "We the Congress" or.....) The "general will" is a dangerous concept. Look at the French Revolution. (There he goes with that history stuff again.) The Electoral College is a safeguard against tyranny of the majority. And the US has been described as a government by the majority with minority rights. The US has a federal system. The states matter! If they don't, get rid of the US Senate. Do away with state legislatures and governors and use them merely in administrative functions. Look at early writings of this country. In united States, the "u" was not capitalized, but the "S" was. In sentences, it was "The united States are," different from today's "The United States is....." States mattered. Federalism allows for more local solutions for more local issues and problems. For instance, should the federal government be involved, that is, use tax dollars from citizens in, say, Nevada, to help clear the massive snowfall today in New England? Of course it shouldn't. In the same vein, issues and candidates will differ in places like New York City and the plains of Nebraska. Should the greater population of NYC elect a President who might ignore the problems of the Plains states? At least with the Electoral College, lip service has to be given to the smaller states' concerns. Eliminating the Electrical College would be a mistake.