Back Home Next

Do “we” need the Electoral College?

By Victor J. Serge

Do we, the commoners, really need the Electoral College? Shouldn’t we clarify its nature to selves in order not to be hypocrites and, after all, might look straight in the eyes of our progeny? Make no mistake; “our” interests are not the same as those of the aristocrats and laborers. As any additional institution, as any additional organized group of the political bureaucrats, the Electoral College is clearly biased to the aristocrats and prejudicial against the laborers; but what about “us” – the middle class. I say: it depends… it depends on time and place; it depends on what “our” long-run interests are today and with whom “we” would rather ally to achieve those interests.

To define “our” long-lasting interests, “we” should walk through “our” major issues – one by one. It is tedious, cumbersome, but necessary process, which I have already done in my previous articles. Therefore, I can cut some corners and generalize that “our” goal, “our” American Dream may be depicted as having a warm and caring wife (husband) and a couple kids, two story house in suburbs, a couple of cars, and a job with $70,000 income. This means that we should make at least 35 bucks per hour. So, with whom we will be better off tomorrow than we are today? What institutions should we discard or create to achieve our American Dream? Should the Electoral College be discarded or buttressed?

In 1787, the most inspiring and debatable issue among the aristocratic framers of the federal constitution was the problem of defining the powers of the chief executive. The majority of delegates of the federal constitutional convention feared equally anarchy and monarchy; they feared equally to be equated with the commoners and laborers, and to be unequal with someone of their own. Having such a dichotomy on their hands, they considered a number of proposals for an executive branch of the political bureaucracy before finally deciding on a single president with significant though limited authority. Although most of the delegates acted on the premise that George Washington would be the first president, yet they feared that the presidency would become “the fetus of monarchy”. Preferring the aristocratic republic, they limited the presidents’ authority by enumerating his powers to shape and lead the defense apparatus against the external foes of the upper class – the diplomatic, military, and security bureaucrats (such as army, NSA, CIA, FBI, etc.). Moreover, they designed the Electoral College and the provision for the House settling inconclusive elections in order to minimize the possibility of future presidents’ attempting to hold office for life through bribery, intrigue, or force.

Now we have an electoral system in which each state is allotted by the Constitution as many electoral votes as it has senators and representatives in Congress. Thus, no state has fewer than three electoral votes. In addition, the District of Columbia also gets three electoral votes, even though it has no members of Congress. Along the way, some changes in the Constitution have been made, proving that it is a living and breathing creature, although not of each generation of the Americans. Thus, the 23rd Amendment, adopted in 1961, permits residents of the District of Columbia to vote for three electors in the same manner as residents of the states.

In each state, each party runs a slate of electors pledged to the presidential and vice presidential candidates of that party. The names of these electors usually do not appear on the ballots. The party-slate whose candidate wins more popular votes than any other is authorized to cast all the votes of that state in the Electoral College.

Through its power of apportioning representatives among the states, Congress determines the number of presidential electors to which each state is entitled. Now the total of state and District of Columbia electors is 538. A simple majority of 270 is necessary for being elected. Presidential electors meet in each state at a place designated by the state legislature, usually the state capitol. By decision of Congress, they meet to vote simultaneously in all the states, on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December of presidential election years. On January 6, following the meeting of the electors, their votes are counted in the presence of both houses of Congress.

The nearest effect of this electoral system manifests as a "winner-take-all" or “trophy” system of shaping the top of the executive bureaucracy. Since the United States is a republican federation or a republican empire, it is up to the state legislators to decide how electors are chosen; consequently, they could devise systems that would produce a split in the states' electoral votes. Michigan in 1892 and Maine in 1972 did this by allowing some or all electors to be chosen by congressional district rather than at large.

If no candidate wins a majority, the federal House of Representatives chooses the president from among the three leading candidates, with each state casting one vote. By House rule, each state's vote is allotted to the candidate preferred by a majority of the state's House delegation. If there is a tie within a delegation, that state’s vote is not counted.

So far, Congress has had to decide three presidential contests. In 1800, Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr tied in the Electoral College because of a defect in the language of the Constitution each state cast two electoral votes without indicating which was for president and which for vice president. Burr supposed to be the vice presidential candidate of the Republican (later the Democratic) party and Jefferson supposed to be its presidential candidate. The electors, by voting strictly for candidates of their party, gave Burr and Jefferson the same number of votes. As the Constitution provided, the election was referred to the House of Representatives, where a protracted scramble took place, requiring 36 ballots before Jefferson was chosen president and Burr vice-president. Thereafter, this problem was corrected. In 1804, the federal Congress enacted and the States ratified the 12th Amendment, providing for separate electoral votes for president and for vice-president.

Under the revised system of government, two more House decisions were made. The first one was made in 1824, when the House chose Adams over Jackson, even though Jackson had more electoral votes (and probably more popular votes) than his rival.

Another important change resulted from a serious dispute in the presidential election of 1876 in which the Republican, Rutherford Hayes, and the Democrat, Samuel Tilden, were the candidates. The dispute involved the validity of the electoral votes of four states, and the outcome was crucial, because Tilden needed just one of the 22 votes to have a majority and Hayes needed all 22 to win. Under existing law, it was the duty of Congress to resolve the dispute, but Congress found self deadlocked. Hayes had polled about 250,000 fewer popular votes than Tilden. Moreover, the latter had 184 uncontested electoral votes (one short of a majority in the electoral college), while Hayes had only 163.

Four states controlled 22 contested votes: Florida (4), Louisiana (8), South Carolina (7), and Oregon (3). The Republicans (Reps) charged that the Democrats (Dems) had won popular majorities in the southern states by intimidating black voters. The charge was probably true, although never proved. However, it is doubtful that such intimidation actually altered the state election results. Retaliating, the Oregon Dems used a technicality to oust a Hayes elector and replace him with a Tilden supporter, throwing Oregon's entire electoral vote into dispute.

Congressional attempts to settle the matter ended in deadlock, because the Reps dominated the Senate and the Dems -- the House of Representatives. Even the threats of civil war were issued. On January 29, 1877, Congress created a 15-member bi-partisan commission to resolve the dispute. It consisted of five Dems, five Reps, and five Supreme Court justices (two Reps and two Dems, who chose a fifth justice, supposedly a non-partisan, but in actuality, a Republican acceptable to the Dems).

Hayes was unanimously awarded the electoral votes from Oregon and South Carolina and the ones from Louisiana by a commission vote of 8 to 7-all votes he probably would have won had there been no manipulation. Hayes was also awarded Florida's electoral votes (by 8 to 7), although Tilden had probably won in that state. Hayes thus became president with 185 electoral votes, a majority of one.

Coming not long after the Civil War, and softened with promised political support for Democratic interests, the compromise was reassuring, because it was accepted peacefully. The commission adopted the Republican view that for Congress to pass on state action in certifying electoral votes constituted an invasion of the sovereignty of the states' bureaucrats. This view was incorporated into an 1877 law giving to the states bureaucrats (with some minor restrictions) an exclusive right to resolve disputes over the votes of presidential electors. Thus, the threat to the pivotal interest (to be alive and rule) of the upper class was diffused, but the problem of conflicting electoral and popular votes remains unresolved.

Later, in 1887, Congress enacted a law that gave the states almost exclusive power to resolve all controversies regarding the selection of presidential electors and that made mandatory, except in cases in which electors vote "irregularly," the acceptance by Congress of all certificates of election duly made by the states. The enactment also provided that Congress might intervene to settle a dispute over the election of the presidential electors of a State only when the State is unable to do so.

The main problem that the aristocratic designers of the federal constitution overcome so gloriously has been in establishing the legitimacy (the appearance of legality and anointment by God) of the presidency itself. The need for legitimacy of the presidency flaws from the need of the upper class to ensure its own ruling, which they can achieve only through the acceptance of their presidency if not by the numerical majority then by the qualitative majority of the people. Thus, the legitimacy of the presidency serves directly to the need of aristocrats by traditionalizing the peaceful and orderly transfer of power from the president to the president-elect and indirectly elevating the rules of the upper class (the laws) in the minds of the commoners and laborers to the awesome level.

The main political effect of the Electoral College manifests in the winner-take-all system, which definitely hampers the emergence of a viable third party. The system encourages candidates to focus their campaigns on those states, which vote may be in doubt. It especially encourages incumbent candidates to emphasize large, doubtful states. A candidate who carries the ten most populous states may win about 260 electoral votes and will need to get support only two depopulated states to become the president. The most populous states tend to be the most urbanized, industrialized, and politically competitive ones. A ruling party and a president seeking reelection have reason to be attentive to the needs of such states.

Hundreds of proposals to alter or abolish the Electoral College have been made, but none has come close to adoption. Among these plans are such as:

1) to elect the president by direct, national, popular vote;
2) to divide each State's electoral votes in proportion to the popular vote received by each candidate in that State;
3) to have electors chosen by congressional district rather than at large;
4) to retain the electoral system but abolish the office of elector and thus the chance of a faithless elector.

The aristocrats (the tops of the Republican and Democratic parties) want to preserve the Electoral College, because they generally believe that it is necessary for stability of the federal republic that the aristocratic bureaucracy of the states would have a role in choosing the president. They believe that such a system would balance out by giving the edge to the incumbent presidential candidate in the most populous states and an electoral reason for the non-incumbent presidential candidate to be attentive to the interests of the de-populated states. On the whole, the upper class will be always pulling the strings of the political bureaucracy never matter what party (Republican or Democratic) is nominally leading the country.

Having the shoe on other foot, the majority of the laborers favors direct popular election, arguing that the interests of the state bureaucrats are irrelevant in the federal presidential elections. They argue that each person’s vote should count the same as every other person's regardless of where he or she lives, thus preserving the rule of the numerical majority. Consequently they neglect the individual's intellect and character, which ultimately manifest in his-her property (money and power, including political one).

For more than two hundred year of its existence, the electoral procedure has been barely changed, but the significance of the presidential electors has been dramatically changed with the growth of the federal bureaucracy from the 1930s. As political parties developed and vied for power, party interests transcend the upper class interests and became the dominant influences on the votes of the electors. Another development was of even greater importance. Before 1820, most of the state legislatures applied their constitutionally granted power of selecting presidential electors by appointing them. However, as the liberation of slaves and women was broadened after 1860s and the electorate began to exercise greater political influence, the states instituted the direct, popular election of presidential electors. By 1868, this practice had been adopted in all the states. To attend this change, political parties began to present lists of presidential electors who were tacitly pledged to vote for the candidates of their party. Thus, the institute of the electors of a state voting as a unit was shaped and traditionalized. This procedure was subsequently made mandatory in most of the states and that has aroused serious criticism from the middle and lower class leaders.

A serious challenge to the "winner-take-all" system of awarding electoral votes was made in 1960s. Mississippi and Alabama allow placing on the ballot of non-pledged electors. If the non-pledged electors win, the electoral vote of the state may be split among the candidates. Responding to this action of the state legislative bureaucrats, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected their proposal in January 1969 by affirming a lower-court ruling that prevented them from harming the interests of the entire upper class.

Occasionally an elector pledged to one candidate has voted for another. Technically, in 25 states, an elector may vote as he or she wishes, and such votes have usually been validated by the federal congress.

The lower class leaders, criticizing of the electoral method, contend that the true sentiments of the voters are distorted by the winner-take-all system, as well as by the fact that voter turnout is not accurately reflected. They point out that a candidate receiving a plurality of the popular vote in a state whether the margin is 1 vote or 1 million carries all the electoral votes of that state, thus, effectively disfranchising a minority of a kind of people at an intermediate stage of the electoral process.

The winner-take-all system is largely responsible for the possibility of a candidate's being elected president even though he polls fewer popular votes than the opponent, as the present contest between Bush and Gore shows. Ought to Bush receive a minority of the popular vote nationally but carry a sufficient number of states to ensure a majority of the electoral votes, he will be elected, and the will of the numerical majority would be frustrated through the legal and normal operation of the Electoral College.

In the election of 1888, Grover Cleveland was defeated though he polled 4,287 more popular votes than Benjamin Harrison. Despite of his popularity, Cleveland received only 168 electoral votes to Harrison's 233.

In recent decades, the popular vote totals for major presidential candidates have sometimes been very close; in 1960 and 1968, for example, the victory margin was less than 1 percent. In the election of 2000, Gore lead Bush somewhat 200,000 in the popular votes, but he has, so far 262 electoral votes. The 1968 and 1980 presidential elections prompted renewed demands of the leaders of the middle and lower classes for reform or abolition of the Electoral College. And if some leaders of the upper class would join them, then it would happen.

However, in the election of 2000, taking into consideration the past and present circumstances, it is more likely than not that the threat to the long-lasting interest of the upper class will be diffused in the manner of the precedent of 1877, when the Dems and Reps jointly formed the federal executive bureaucracy.

Unless the two-party system will be reformed and the third viable party emerges, the commoners should not expect that their long-lasting interests would be thoroughly promoted through the federal bureaucracy. It is so because the electoral laws were created by the aristocrats and for the protection of the aristocratic interests, making it hard, if not impossible, for a third-party candidate to win. Why is it so?

Firstly, because the members of Congress are elected from single-member districts, thus assuming that this seat in a given district can be win by the candidate of only one party and that if there is only one party, such a political system would be a monarchy. However, the aristocratic designers of the federal constitution strived for a republican empire. Hence, only the candidates of two aristocratic parties that have money and firm organizational structure are likely to win. Hence, voters are reluctant to “waste” their votes on a minor-party candidate, who has slim to none chances to win.

Secondly, the winner in a race for a federal congressional seat is determined by a candidate’s ability to win a “plurality” of votes cast. If having a simple majority votes means having over a half of votes and having a super majority votes means having two thirds of votes, then having a plurality votes means having a majority of votes that is not necessarily over half. In most of European countries, the latter case would be resolved through the runoff election. If we would have runoff elections, then many parties might enter the first election hoping to do well enough to get into the runoff, at which time they would form alliances with other minor parties and groups of an interest (factions) that would more fairly represent the long-lasting interests of the middle class. For instance, in France, the members of the national legislature are chosen by “proportional representation”.

This means that several members are elected from each district with the members divided among the parties in proportion to the votes cast for those parties. If a party wins 20% of the votes, it gets 20% of the seats in the parliament; if it gets 3% of the votes, it gets 3% of the seats. If there is no a simple majority, then a runoff takes place between leading candidates. Thus, even the minutest interests of the middle class have a chance to be fairly represented in the national bureaucracy.

Therefore, if we, the commoners, are willing to reform the aristocratic electoral system, we ought to start from elimination of undemocratic, dishonest, and corrupt practices of the two aristocratic parties in the conduct of public elections, we ought to start from a meaningful campaign financing reform.

How to advance in this direction, we should know how to build a viable third party, our party.


11/29/00

THE THIRD PARTY

[email protected]

Home editorial demise dead or alive free_speech abortion electoral_coll gun_control monopoly money social_security spy_who_douse_me star_wars tax_reform war_on_drugs others mymaxims photos content biography offer appendix deutsch francais espanol russian

Hit Counter


Victor J. Serge created this page and revised it on 04/13/03