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