“Electoral College Obsolete”
by Tom Shanahan
Albany Times Union - December 1, 2000

Americans are long accustomed to the comfortable notion that there is no higher authority than the will of the people. Yet, as we are now painfully aware, nothing requires that the winner of the popular vote be awarded the Oval Office. On three previous occasions the Electoral College chose the loser of the popular vote as president. It has now happened a fourth time. Detractors already question how Governor Bush can legitimately govern without a popular mandate, but his victory came from playing by rules that have existed for over two centuries. Unfortunately, the Constitution does not have the power to confer credibility on the President, as it can the power to sign or veto bills, command the military, or appoint high government officers.

The most important lesson of this bitterly contested election is that Electors choose our president, not voters. This result has generated a chorus of calls to let people directly choose who will hold our only national office. George W. Bush should use the bully pulpit of his office to direct this chorus. As someone who wouldn’t hold his high office absent the impact of the Electoral College, Governor Bush would enjoy more credibility than anyone else alive in leading the growing movement to eliminate the Electoral College. In so doing, he would enhance his credibility, and thus his legitimacy as our national leader.

Andrew Jackson

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 inhibit democracy and promote slavery. Eliminating it would redress two century-old prejudices, and solve some vexing problems posed by modern politics.

Before dismantling this obscure provision, we should understand why the Constitution lets a defeated candidate assume office. Having literally risked their lives, fortunes, and their 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.”

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 property, although the amount 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 erasing a blot on our nation’s heritage.

Modern technology offers a new argument for ending the Electoral College. Since electoral votes rather than popular votes, determine the president, the eastern states often provide the winning vote margin hours before polls close in the west. The anticipated results are projected by exit polls that may or may not be accurate, and immediately communicated nationwide by marvels of technology unimagined by the founders. Critics charge the race between media networks to instantly transmit returns 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.

Some argue that a popular vote election would encourage candidates to ignore states with small populations. But that objection rings hollow if you examine this election cycle, when large states like Texas and New York were ignored because they weren’t competitive. So was the small state of Rhode Island. When every voter counts, every state must receive attention.

The Electoral College has handed Governor Bush the seat of power. By leading the growing movement to abolish this arcane institution, he will assume the equally important mantle of legitimacy.