A criticism of the electoral college is that it gives too much prominence to the smaller states with its winner takes all electoral technology and warps the population's will such as the popular vote. The American founding fathers used the electoral college to protect against tyranny and usurpation by nobled tyrant, but also to try and balance the 'federal' and 'national' characters of the Washington system.
The Electoral College is an indirect voting mechanism. US citizens vote for representatives who then cast ballots for the US President. The electors do not have cast their ballots as per the popular will in that state, they can defy the voters if necessary. This was done to protect against tyranny or a noble trying to usurp the democratic system. The convention however is that the electors vote in a block as per the citizen voters wishes. I imagine there would be all sorts of public discord and trouble if they did not.
The number of electoral college votes a state has is in direct proportion to the number of senators and representatives the state has. For instance California has fifty-five electors while Arizona has ten. For a President to be elected they must have a majority of electoral college votes. An advantage of this system is that it tends to legitimize the president-elect as the winner takes all system makes a larger winning margin than the national popular vote.
Most who argue that it is unfair base the injustice of the system on the electors being indirect, the states being winner takes all, and the popular will of the nation not necessarily being reflected in the electoral college outcome. James Madison and Alexander Hamilton defend the electoral college as an electoral method in Federalist Papers No.39 and No.68.
For Madison it was important politically, constitutionally and electorally to balance the federal and national aspects of the Washington System. As a federation, the US system was an amalgam of political equals in the colonies which are now known as the states. It was necessary to bring on board the smaller states in such a way that they would not be politically swamped by the larger ones of Virginia, New York and Pennsylvania. Today the large states are New York and California.
The 'federal' character of the system, such as the Senate and the electoral college keep the smaller states politically within the system as equal partners. The Washington system also contains national character such as the House which expands electorates based on population alone. The national aspect of the electoral college is that the number of electors expands with population, so while Montana gets a discrete voice with its electors, it is swamped by the larger number of electors in Florida.
Madison writes:
The next relation is, to the sources from which the ordinary powers of government are to be derived. The House of Representatives will derive its powers from the people of America; and the people will be represented in the same proportion, and on the same principle, as they are in the legislature of a particular State. So far the government is national, not federal. The Senate, on the other hand, will derive its powers from the States, as political and coequal societies; and these will be represented on the principle of equality in the Senate, as they now are in the existing Congress. So far the government is federal, not national. The executive power will be derived from a very compound source. The immediate election of the President is to be made by the States in their political characters. The votes allotted to them are in a compound ratio, which considers them partly as distinct and coequal societies, partly as unequal members of the same society. The eventual election, again, is to be made by that branch of the legislature which consists of the national representatives; but in this particular act they are to be thrown into the form of individual delegations, from so many distinct and coequal bodies politic. From this aspect of the government it appears to be of a mixed character, presenting at least as many federal as national features.Consequently Madison saw it as important for the executive to carry both the federal and national characteristics while maintaining a buffer against the executive being usurped by tyranny with the indirect election that comes through the electors. This also gives the states a voice in vetoing an executive that is not governing, or not going to governing in the federation's interests as well. Hamilton writes:
It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture. It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief. The choice of several, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of one who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes. And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place.The United States has been a stable democracy for two hundred years now but in 1787 there was no guarantee that executive power would pass from one President to another without violence or on-going revolution. Consequently we look at the indirect nature of the electoral college as a historical anachronism. The United States is also an increasing national political system than a federal one. The ongoing expansion of centralized power in Washington DC has meant that the policy prerogatives of the states is getting smaller and smaller with each Presidential term. The Bush Administration and Republican Congress for instance expanded central power into the states territory with the No Child Left Behind act. No state refused the money, weakening the federal character and state independence further. So is the Electoral College unfair? Not really. The national voice is provided for in its unadultered form in the House. The federal voice is pure in form in the Senate. The election of the President and Vice President is intended to be a mix of the two with the added safety valve of indirect election. It has worked well for the US so far and the winner takes all aspect of the federal system in the electoral college has given added legitimacy to Presidents who have barely won the national popular vote. The Electoral College as an electoral system sits neatly within the design and goals of the Washington system of politics and constitutional structure.
Comments