Why We Need The Electoral College More Than Ever

There have been five presidential elections in the twenty-first century and two of them have been mired in controversy, with particular attacks on the Electoral College. The indirect method of electing a president and vice president is specified in Article II Section 1 of the Constitution. The debate about this method is not new and goes back to the time before the Constitution was adopted. The Federalist number 68 and the Anti-Federalist number 72 outlined the arguments for and against the Electoral College better than I can explain them and reference is made to those historic documents for further understanding of the issues involved. It should be noted that the Electoral College was strongly favored by the slave states who feared domination by the more populous free states and that the three-fifths compromise (Article I, Section 2, Clause 3), universally condemned for many years, is also part of the Constitution. This heinous compromise was finally repealed by the Fourteenth Amendment. Nevertheless, the Electoral College endures to this day and is a central part of every major party presidential candidate’s campaign strategy. 

The major controversy regarding the Electoral College and the indirect election of the President versus the direct election by plurality or majority of the popular vote is the occurrence on four occasions of the popular vote winner losing the Electoral College vote and  thus the presidency. The first time this happened was in 1876 when Rutherford B. Hayes won the Electoral College vote over Samuel J. Tilden 185 to 184, despite losing the popular vote by three percentage points, 50.9% to 47.9% In the election of 1888, incumbent President Grover Cleveland  narrowly won the popular vote (48.6% versus 47.8%) while losing the electoral vote by a large margin to Benjamin Harrison (233 to 168). These two seeming aberrations didn’t recur for more than a century and were considered rare oddities for political scientists and historians to debate. With the growth of various forms of communications, particularly the Internet, repetitions of these events would take on greater controversy in the twenty-first century.

One of the most bitterly contentious elections was that of 2000 between the republican Governor of Texas, George W. Bush and the incumbent democrat Vice President Albert Gore of Tennessee. The electoral vote could not have been closer as it was 271 to 266 in favor of Bush. Gore, however, won the popular vote 48.4% to Bush’s 47.9%, a margin of only 0.5%. A change in the electoral vote in any state would have thrown the election to Gore. Disputes over the vote count in Florida led to weeks of litigation with the case styled Bush v. Gore finally reaching the Supreme Court which ruled in favor of the Texas governor. Bush, the 43rd president, served two terms yet to this day that election remains controversial. Gore supporters feel that the Supreme Court, with a majority of republican appointees favored Bush. Of course, the Court should be non partisan and non political but that is questioned by the Gore camp to this day. Even more controversial was the election of 2016 between the democrat nominee and first woman to seek the presidency on a major party, Hillary Clinton and the republican nominee, businessman and political newcomer Donald Trump. Trump had never served in government and had never ran for political office prior to his run for the presidency. Clinton, a former first lady, wife of Bill Clinton, also served as a Senator from New York and four years as Secretary of State under President  Barack Obama. This race, due to the extreme political  polarization which had occurred among the American population led to one of the nastiest campaigns in our history with strong feelings on both sides. The results only worsened the split in the population as Mrs. Clinton won the popular ballot by almost 2,900,000 votes (48.2% versus 46.1%)  yet lost the electoral vote by 304 to 227. This result led to demonstrators and rioting throughout  the country for several days. More significantly, it led to increasing criticism of the Electoral College with calls for its abolition and direct election of the president.

Amending the Constitution is not easy. The bar was set very high to prevent frivolous attempts at change.  Article Five requires that an amendment obtain a two-thirds majority in each House of Congress and then obtain passage by three-quarters of the states’ legislatures.This is not easy and can take years for passage. Additionally two-thirds of the states may call a convention for purposes of proposing an amendment. This route has never happened but if it were to occur the two-thirds House and Senate majorities and three-quarters of the states’ legislatures would still be required. Whether sufficient support exists to effect such an emendation of the Constitution is highly questionable. An organization called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact has been working to obtain state legislation which would preserve the Electoral College yet establish the popular vote to be decisive. This compact would have each state legislature appoint electors who would support the winner of the national popular vote, thereby ensuring the election of the popular vote winner. This compact has currently been approved by fifteen states and the District of Columbia. These states, both large and small in population, have a total of 192 electoral votes, a not insignificant number of the total needed for election, 270 votes. These states, however, tend strongly to the Democrat Party. Their composition of senators is twenty-nine democrat to one republican and their contingent of representatives is one hundred thirty-four to twenty-seven in favor of the democrats. Whether such a compact would stand up to constitutional scrutiny is debatable. The voters in states which favored the popular vote loser would essentially lose the value of their vote as their state would assign electors to support the popular vote winner, thus increasing the value of votes from states other than their own. Massive voter disenfranchisement would be the result and the influence of smaller states would evaporate as the campaigns would be where the votes are. Whether this initiative advances remains to be seen but up to this point it has gained support in democrat strongholds. Whether it can obtain support in other states is questionable.

A very strong reason to preserve the Electoral College despite possible discrepancy between the electoral and popular vote is electoral integrity and honesty. With the polarization of the population, there has become an increasing one party control of various cities and states with consequent control of the electoral process. Political machines such as Tammany Hall may have lost  power and influence but machine domination still exists. The control of South Texas counties by political bosses led to the 1948 Democrat senate primary nomination of “Landslide Lyndon” Johnson by 47 votes. Robert Caro’s multi volume biography of LBJ (Means of Ascent) describes in detail the chicanery and fraud used to buy that election. Sixty years after the 1960 election, notoriety still reflects on the Illinois vote, with the late reporting of Chicago results by Mayor Daley and his machine, thus tipping the election to John F. Kennedy.

Elections should be fair, honest and transparent. Yet when over one hundred and forty million votes are cast errors may occur. An error is different from dishonesty and cheating. Fifty state contests are much more difficult to manipulate than one state may be. A single result based on the total popular vote may sound good, but it may not smell so well if we don’t get an honest vote. Nobody, or almost nobody wants stolen elections. The Electoral College can protect against that happening. The Electoral College has proven its value since its creation and must be preserved.

Garry S. Sklar

Las Vegas, Nevada

November 10, 2020