The Personal Website of Mark W. Dawson

The Electoral College

"Democracies ... have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."
- James Madison

"The mode of appointment of the Chief Magistrate of the United States is almost the only part of the system . . . which has escaped without severe censure. . . . I venture somewhat further, and hesitate not to affirm that if the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent."
- Alexander Hamilton

And many of the other Founding Fathers agreed. The Founding Fathers knew from their studies of history that direct democratic governments often collapse upon themselves in a short period of time. This was often the case because the minority was often repressed by the majority, and the repressed minority often rose in revolt. They were also concerned that mob passions could replace careful consideration in public policy matters. They also knew that the large population centers could overwhelm the smaller areas of the country in a popular vote and that the smaller areas would have no significant say in the election of the President. They also wanted each State to have a role in the election of the President. They, therefore, created a Republic that was democratically elected as a check on this problem, and the election of the President through the Electoral College was the means that they chose to implement this check.

John Jay, our nation’s first Chief Justice, observed in 1809 that “pure democracy, like pure rum, easily produces intoxication, and with it a thousand mad pranks and fooleries.” Perhaps that explains why, as John Adams warned five years later, “Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” This is one of the reasons our Founding Fathers created the Electoral College - to protect us from pure democracy.

This has resulted in the case of a President being elected that had more Electoral votes than popular votes, most notably in 2000 (Bush vs. Gore) and 2016 (Trump vs. Clinton). The 2016 election has resulted in much gnashing of teeth and complaints that it was not a truly democratic election. But it is not supposed to be a truly democratic election, but a republic election, which it was. Mrs. Clinton received about 3 million more popular votes than Mr. Trump, but it should be noted that most of these votes came from the States of California and New York. States that Mr. Trump did not even campaign in as he knew he had no chance of winning their electoral votes (a republic election). If he has campaigned in these states, and other states that went heavily for Mrs. Clinton (a democratic election), perhaps the popular vote discrepancy would not have been so wide (and maybe negated).

If we had a democratic election in 2016 a large part of the country would not have had a significant say in the election of the President. The Presidential candidates would have concentrated their campaigns in the larger metropolitan areas, ignoring many parts of the country. This can be seen in the following maps that show the 2016 election results vs the population density of the United States:

2016 Results by County (Red – Trump, Blue – Clinton):

 

2016 Results by Population Density (Grey– Trump, Blue – Clinton):

 

 

As can be seen from these maps Mrs. Clintons’ voters were concentrated in the larger metropolitan area, while Mr. Trumps’ voters were in the non-metropolitan regions. A democratic election would have split the country in two by population density, and by less populated states vs. more populated states, something that the Founding Fathers were very fearful of as detrimental to a republic. The last time we had such a split in our history it led to the Civil War over slavery.

It should also be noted that the rules of the election were firmly established before the election. Mr. Trump organized his campaign around winning the electoral votes, while Mrs. Clinton seemed to be concentrating her campaign around the larger metropolitan regions. Therefore Mr. Trump won the election by playing to the rules of the election, while Mrs. Clinton assumed she had already won states that Mr. Trump was contesting, and she therefore lost.

An analogy would be baseball’s World Series. The winner of the World Series is the first team to win four of seven games, not the team that scored more runs over a seven-game series. In the 2016 World Series Chicago won the title over Cleveland 4 games to 3. However, Cleveland scored more runs (28) than Chicago (26). Could Cleveland make a case that they were the champions because they scored more runs? No – the rules of the World Series are that the first team that wins 4 games is the Champion. The rules of the Electoral College state the candidate who wins a least 270 electoral votes is the winner of the Presidential race. Mr. Trump did this, and therefore he was the winner.

Recently, several States have passed "The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC)" an agreement among a group of U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The compact is designed to ensure that the candidate who receives the most votes nationwide is elected president, and it would come into effect only when it would guarantee that outcome. As of March 2019, it has been adopted by twelve states and the District of Columbia. Together, they have 181 electoral votes, which is 33.6% of the Electoral College and 67.0% of the 270 votes needed to give the compact legal force. An example from the 2016 Presidential election illustrates how this works. In the 2016 Presidential election Mrs. Clinton won the popular vote nationwide, while in Texas Mr. Trump won the popular vote statewide. If the NPVIC was in effect in Texas the Electoral Votes of Texas would have went to Mrs. Clinton despite the will of the Texas voters in choosing Mr. Trump. In my opinion this results in the disenfranchisement of the voters in Texas who choose Mr. Trump. There are also some issues as to NPVIC's Constitutionality, as well as its implementation in regards to voter eligibility, voter fraud, and vote recounts (nationwide or statewide?). I also believe that this is an attempt to thwart the purpose of the Electoral College in assuring a stable Republic and to mitigate majority rule at the expense of the minority interests or rights. In all, I believe that not only would NPVIC be unconstitutional but that it is an attempt to thwart the Founding Fathers intent to establish a stable republic that protects the small states from encroachments of the larger states.

At present, most states award all their electoral vote to the winner of the state (winner-take-all). As each state has 2 electoral votes (representing the Senators of the state), and a variable number of electors (representing the congressional districts within the state), I would have the winner of the state garner the 2 electoral votes of the senators, and the winner of a congressional district garner the electoral vote of that congressional district. I believe that this would make for a more Democratic-Republic election but preserve the Founding Fathers concerns about a direct democratic election of the President. It would also alleviate the frustration of the voters who believe that their voices were not heard in elections, as the winner-take-all does not allow for their voice to be heard in the Electoral College vote.

If this had happened in the 2016 Presidential Election the results would have been as follows:

State		Congressional
HRC	DJT	HRC	DJT
40	60	197	241
DJT Total		301
HRC Total		237
Total		538

As can be seen from the above chart the results of the Presidential election would have had Mr. Trump having slightly less Electoral votes but a sufficient number of Electoral votes to become President of the United States. However, the voters in the Electoral districts would have had their will reflected in the Electoral College which promotes the Democratic republic nature of our Constitution. It is for this reason that I would change the winner-take-all to my suggested Electoral College voting.

A more comprehensive critique of the Electoral College is a National Affairs article "In Defense of the Electoral College" by Allen Guelzo. An article well worth your time to review before you reach an opinion on the Electoral College. In this article Professor Guelzo notes that the Electoral College is also a bulwark against fraud:

Fraud that is much more difficult to accomplish within an Electoral College than it would be in a Popular Vote.

I would finally note:

If we ever change from an Electoral Vote System to a Popular Vote System we will not be the United States of America, but the United Cities of America.