If you’re worried about the president subverting the electoral process, you might pause to give thanks for the electoral college. If the election were conducted by a federal authority, or if any single authority were responsible for aggregating all the votes from around the country, it’s a fair bet that either this president or some future president would be exploring ways to intimidate that authority.
How is it that so many of the very same people who express grave concern about a president clinging to power by manipulating or ignoring vote totals are so quick to disdain the institution that makes it essentially impossible for him to do exactly that?
It’s always dangerous to centralize power. It’s doubly dangerous to centralize the power to decide who wields power.
More thoughts on this can be found in my piece in today’s Wall Street Journal.
You could easily organize the voting and vote-counting at the state level, as it is done currently.
In fact, that is what the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact seeks to achieve.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
I’m undecided about the Electoral College.
I know that many pro-direct-democracy reforms in the past have had unintended consequences.
Someone like Trump would never have become a candidate while the presidential candidates were still decided by the parties in smoke-filled rooms, for example.
Another example: the abolishment of earmarks and pork-barrel spending has contributed hugely towards making Congress dysfunctional.
One obvious problem with the abolishment of the Electoral College would be that every state would become a battleground state.
And while it takes quite a lot of money to saturate the media markets in 7+ states, imagine doing that in 50, including such huge markets as California.
Elections would become A LOT more expensive, and I’m not sure the US would benefit from ramping up the influence of money in politics.
The National Popular Vote Interstate Agreement may be the answer.
The idea is that states agree to send their electors to vote for the candidate with the popular vote. They only agree when enough States to have 270 electors also agree. If they all stick to this, which would presumably be enforced by the State legislators passing laws that this is how they will assign electors, then we would have the States running elections exactly as they do now, but we would elect the candidate that won the popular vote. There are arguments if this is constitutional and the SC would probably be involved if enough states wanted to sign up.
This would also be an impermanent solution, because States could pass laws at any time that use a different method, such as we have now, but it may be good to give it a try.
“How is it that so many of the very same people who express grave concern about a president clinging to power by manipulating or ignoring vote totals are so quick to disdain the institution that makes it essentially impossible for him to do exactly that?”
The reason is that the electoral college is a very imperfect way to achieve the desired end. There are myriad other ways and other countries seem to manage. I am sure they all have some problems and weaknesses, but to say the electoral college as currently formulated is a a really good way to do this seems absurd.
Somewhat like arguing that people who want safe roads should be in favor of really big potholes because it slows down traffic.
The article is pay walled, so I cannot see you responses to these objections, which I am sure you will have covered in some way.
Agree with Advo #1 – this conflates two issues: who has responsibility for administering the vote counting process etc., and how those votes translate into selection of the president.
Coming from the UK, one thing that surprised me about the election count was that results started coming out of eastern states before ballot boxes had closed further west. Obviously the UK is small enough that we are all in one timezone, but I think we also have a prohibition on any election-day exit polls etc. from being announced until ballot boxes close. Just seems a little odd that you permit the results from early-closing states to potentially influence (maybe via turnout) the results in other states.
CA is the most populous state and it leans heavily Left. If you eliminate CA from the results then the popular vote for 2016 and 2020 is pretty much dead even. Add CA and you see Hillary winning by 3.5 Million and Biden by 5 Million.
If it weren’t for the Electoral College then California would be pretty much picking the President for the rest of the country. In other words the needs of the less populous states would be largely ignored.
To see how that plays out look at NYS where NYC pretty much tells the rest of the state how to live.
I have made this point before and I will make it again: I would respect opposition towards the Electoral College more if the people advocating for it also advocated for their state moving away from winner-take-all. If direct popular voting is more democratic at the Federal level, it is more democratic at the state level as well. The states don’t need a systemic change to switch to proportional allocation of electors. I don’t understand why I keep hearing about how awful the EC is, and yet I never hear about switching away from winner-take-all for individual states.
@Henri Hein –
Not to be too pessimistic, but I generally see support for/against the Electoral College lining up pretty neatly with whichever system would help that person’s party win the election.
I don’t see much substance regarding which method is more fair or equitable. The end goal seems to just be: win the largest number of elections, not: create a fair and equitable system.
Henri #5
I do not disagree (if they were to do it like Maine or Nebraska where each district gets one elector and the winning ticket gets two more).
The problem is who wants to be “first”? Reminds me of our old pub rule, “He who buys last buys least”.
The Electoral College means that votes in Kansas will not be overwhelmed by fraud in Chicago. The only thing that Chicago necromancers can do by making the dead rise from their graves to vote is to steal Illinois.
Now, with constant and obvious fraud for several election cycles in Detroit and Philadelphia, it’s possible that an election that hinged on those states could be subverted. but then, such fraud would end up being obvious. At that point, the fraudsters would probably just try to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes. Nothing to see here, all is well, move along. Never mind the turnout was greater than 100% in some precincts and electioneering laws were broken.
It could happen.
Yes, I agree that most alternatives to the Electoral College are worse. As you say, the alternatives might be more susceptible to fraud, manipulation, and coups.
All voting systems have weaknesses. I think someone proved that.
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, besides being unconstitutional, has several defects. If you think of democracy as majority-rule, then it is actually anti-democratic, as it favors winners who do not get a majority of the votes.
Henri makes a good point. I would like to hear how the EC haters answer it.
Contrary to what Advo says, candidates would not campaign in all 50 states. Democrats would concentrate on running up the vote in California, and Republicans might only campaign in states where they are strong.
@Steve, #6:
I think that’s exactly right.
@joe henry, #7:
It kind of goes to Steve’s point. If it is about moving towards a fair and equatable system, you should be happy going first.
Henri #10
How likely is that to happen in a country where the guy ahead of me buys up *ALL* the toilet paper : -)
> Democrats would concentrate on running up the vote in California,
That wouldn’t make any sense.
A vote is a vote, and investments in getting them/getting them out will have diminishing returns.
Some interesting comments. The electoral college has not historically favoured any party consistently. Recently it has favoured Republicans, but that is not baked in.
The electoral college system gives more voter power to voters in small states. Henri Hein #5 suggests sending the electors from each state proportionally. This would not change the voter power issue, but how would it affect the result?
You can play around with different methods for the 2016 election here:
https://www.270towin.com/alternative-electoral-college-allocation-methods/
In 2016, using the proportional vote by state (popular vote by state (PVS)) there would have been be no overall winner due to 3rd party candidates (265 Clinton, 267 Trump). Of course, the votes would have been different with a different system, but it is interesting to play around to get a feel. Overall, PVS seems to more closely represent the popular vote, but the extra voter power in small states swings it a bit Republican. The problem is that elections are much more likely to be decided by the House of Representatives, which seems very unsatisfactory. The house decides by delegation, and that is even more unrepresentative of the popular vote. PVS also exacerbates the voter power issue because small states are less likely to have to send delegates from 3rd parties.
Another problem is that it would only really work if all states did it, as pointed out by joe henry, which cannot be compelled without a constitutional amendment. It really makes no sense for any state to go first in order to move towards a fairer system without some good indication that others will follow. It may be possible for swing states, but they are not going to give up their influence. Solidly red or blue states would simply be giving away votes.
Lots of problems with this suggestion.
Doctor Weasel lives up to his or her name, parroting weasel words which contribute nothing.
Roger (#9) makes little sense. The interstate compact is arguably constitutional. That would have to be decided and the arguments on both sides are reasonable. He claims that a system that awards the election to the person with the most votes favours winners who do not get a majority of the votes. Perhaps he does not understand the compact or just phrased it badly.
Roger hints at Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem, which Steve has illustrated at length here. It shows that given some reasonable seeming criteria for a fair election, it is impossible to adhere to all of them. One criterion for a reasonable and fair election to my mind is that every vote counts the same, which the current electoral college prevents.
Practical matter aside, the first question is what would be a reasonable way to decide who is president? many think a popular vote is the best way to decide. If you believe that small states should have a proportionally larger say than large states, then that is a position you could reasonably defend. If that is your argument, then make it. To claim that fear of fraud is the reason is simply hiding your real concerns behind a smokescreen. The question is not really how would we organise a popular vote, but should the President be decided by popular vote.
Harold, the Wikipedia page has explanations of why the compact would be unconstitutional. It would also be subject to states reneging.
It is a simple fact that the compact is designed to make a winner out of the candidate that gets a plurality of the popular votes, and no majority is required. Go read it yourself, if you do not believe it. If you are looking for democracy in the sense of majority rule, then the compact does not do it.
“the Wikipedia page has explanations of why the compact would be unconstitutional”
The wikipedia page describes the arguments both for and agianst constitutionality. I see how you think now. You see the arguments for the view you want to believe and ignore the arguments against.
This is obvious because the source you use (Wikipedia) says specifically:
” the CRS report concludes that if the NPVIC were to be enacted by the necessary number of states, it would likely become the source of considerable litigation, and it is likely that the Supreme Court will be involved in any resolution of the constitutional issues surrounding it.”
Exactly supporting my view that the constitutionality is uncertain and refuting your view that this has already been decided as unconstitutional.
Regarding the compact and majority rule, I see your point but I am not looking for what you call “majority rule” and clearly neither are you. I am happy to accept that democracy can give the election to the candidate with the most votes, so you are presenting a straw man argument.
We could argue about whether a plurality or a majority should be required, but I think we can agree that generally speaking, the candidate with fewer votes should not win, as is currently the case. The compact favors the candidate who gets the most votes. It does not favor “winners who do not get a majority” as you said.
As I said, if you want to make a case that the president should not be elected on the basis of the popular vote, then make that case. Do not argue that the perfect should be the enemy of the good. The compact clearly represents the popular vote much better than the current system.
“I think we can agree” — Nope. Arrow listed some voting principles that we can all agree on, and then proved that they were impossible.
The USA has a system that has worked reasonably well for 230 years. There would have to be a compelling reason to change it. Harold, you have offered none. Steve has published an argument as to why the EC is better than a popular vote system. No one here has countered his argument.
However much you may think that it is desirable for the winner to have won a majority of the popular votes, the NPVIC does not do that.
My main problem with the electoral college is the winner-take-all rule for most states. Two states, Nebraska and Maine, play by different rules. Of course, ultimately the “winner” even in a popular vote wins setup is also a “winner take all game” but it makes more sense. Think about it; the way states are setup is very random. Why 50? Why are they cut where they are? I believe I read somewhere that in theory a President could win the electoral college while only getting somewhere in the 20s in the popular vote. Why would we want such a system ? Keep the electoral college but change all states to the Nebraska/Maine format.
“However much you may think that it is desirable for the winner to have won a majority of the popular votes, the NPVIC does not do that.”
Roger, please read what I said. It is tiresome to keep repeating the same thing. I am happy for the election to be won by the candidate with the most votes, not the majority of all votes.
“No one here has countered his argument.” The snippet of the argument presented here has been refuted convincingly. It is a poor justification for keeping the electoral college as it is now, but you can still keep the measures that prevent organised fraud and have a popular vote.
Arrow said of his Theorem “Most systems are not going to work badly all of the time. All I proved is that all can work badly at times.”
Arrow’s work was groundbreaking and very imporant, but it does not invalidate elections.
“The USA has a system that has worked reasonably well for 230 years.” It functions, but that does not mean it could not be improved. The criterion that most people most of the time agree is the winner of an election is the candidate with the most votes. It seems to me that there needs to be a justification for the proposition that the winner should not be the person with the most votes. “We have always done it like that” is not a good justification. “The system also makes it difficut to have organised fraud” is also not a very good argument, since there are other ways to achieve that.
There are arguments that have been hinted at, such as that small states would be swamped by larger states. I don’t find that very convincing. In a popular vote every vote counts the same, whether from a small or large state, but the arguments have not been presented here, so I don’t know what they are. Nobody has come up with a reasonable defence of the electoral college system.
Small states get a massive advantage in the Senate. They have a massive advantage in the House where it votes by delegation. It seems a stretch to argue they should also have it in the Presidency.
I don’t get too involved in discussions about the electoral college. I see its advantages in situation like those cited here. And there is the simple math. You’d need 3/4th of states to approve of an amendment that would give 2/3rds of the states less say in who is elected President.
Perhaps slightly off topic but …
The Bill of Rights “protects” the minority from the majority.
In similar fashion the “electoral college” gives smaller states a little extra sway.
For a more recent example look to the Euro Union where smaller countries were also granted a little extra sway else … why would they sign on only to be bullied by the larger countries?
The smaller states have rather more than a “little extra sway” in the senate. They have a massive extra sway. Is there any real justification why they should have a little extra sway in electing the president as well?
Harold #21;
Maybe, maybe not, but at least it was talked about in 17 hundred whatever and was addressed by the “Connecticut Compromise”. The extra sway in the Senate is made up for by the House where, for example, California has 53 votes versus 1 for Delaware.
The Electoral (Presidential vote) simply mirrors that compromise.