“The Electoral College Should Go”
by Tom Shanahan
The Empire Page - Website for News and Information on Politics and Government

Americans are long accustomed to the comfortable notion that there is no higher authority than the will of the people. Yet, when women go to the polls on election day, an obscure device created by the founding fathers keep them from voting for a president, almost a century after the triumph of women's suffrage. Descendants of slaves are prevented from choosing their president by this same device, and, in fact, so are white men.

What happens on Election Day is appointment of an obscure council called the Electoral College. Electors choose our president, not the public, and not more than a handful of voters could name any of the 538 individuals who really make this vital national choice. Still, at noon on the third Monday in December, those anonymous electors will satisfy the constitution's quadrennial mandate to "meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for president and vice president, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state as themselves."

George Washington

Nothing in the Constitution requires Electors to be appointed by the result of the general election. Theoretically, the New York state legislature could award Electors based on the Election Day results of the seventh race at Belmont. While it is unlikely any state legislature would be rash enough to completely ignore public input in our only national election, the point is, they could. In fact, on three occasions the Electoral College has ignored public input by choosing the loser of the popular vote as president. It hasn't happened in over a century, but opinion polls in this year's maddeningly close presidential contest make it abundantly clear it could happen again. At a time when voter distrust of

government is rising, public outrage over such a result would likely destroy the ability of the new president to govern.

A worse scenario would occur if no candidate receives a majority of 270 electoral votes. In that case, the House of Representatives chooses from the top three candidates. The vote of 26 states is needed to win, and each state has just one vote. This gives every state, no matter its population, an equal voice. Many "third party" candidates try to create such an impasse, and thus gain bargaining power. In an Electoral College impasse, the opportunities for unsavory backroom deals are almost limitless. In 1876 such a deal ended reconstruction in the south in return for the Republicans retaining the presidency.

With the threat of the people's decision being ignored looming large this year, it is time we resolved to abolish the Electoral College, and let people directly choose who will hold our only national elected office.

It may be hard to understand why the Constitution would have a mechanism that allows a defeated candidate to assume office. Some argue this obscure mechanism is central to our federal system, designed to give individual states a voice in the national government. But its real purpose was to limit democracy and promote slavery. Having literally risked their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor in pursuit of liberty, the founding fathers were not about to entrust their stake in the new nation to the wisdom of a populace they considered little better than rabble. A favorite maxim of John Jay, one of the authors of the Federalist Papers, bluntly maintained that "the people who own the country ought to run it." Appointed Electors were a buffer from that rabble.

The body politic two centuries ago bore little resemblance to today's electorate. Women, slaves and Indians could not vote, and true to the spirit of Jay, most states required that voters own a certain amount of property, although it differed from state to state. So another problem with having a popular vote for president was the lack of uniform voting qualifications. With universal suffrage for everyone older than eighteen, this is no longer an objection.

The anti-democratic nature of this archaic instrument is not the only reason for its elimination. It is the only remaining provision of the original constitution designed to perpetuate slavery. Electors were awarded based on the size of a state's congressional delegation, which was determined through the infamous 3/5ths compromise that magnified the power of slaveowners. Slavery was abolished more than a century ago. This mechanism designed to promote it should also be, thus removing a blot on our nation's heritage. When the Constitution was adopted in 1787, slavery was a good reason for having an Electoral College. Today, the legacy of slavery is a good reason for not having one.

Modern technology offers a new argument for ending the Electoral College. Since electoral votes determine the president, rather than popular votes, the eastern states often provide the winning 270 vote margin hours before polls close in the west. This news is immediately communicated nationwide by marvels of technology unimagined by the founders. Critics charge that the race between media networks to instantly transmit results of an election still in progress, is an irresponsible abuse of their journalistic mandate, which may affect other races. The media respond that their duty is to report news when it occurs.

Rather than restrict freedom of the press, abolishing the Electoral College is a better solution. By eliminating the significance of the outcome in any single state, the rush to offer instant results is slowed, through the simple expedient of being rendered meaningless.

The Electoral College should be abolished before the next presidential election. Truly, it is the best way to make everyone's vote count.

Tom Shanahan is a registered lobbyist and former Congressional press secretary residing in the Capital District.