(A reprint of a paper written in October 2016 during the Presidential election process)
NOTE - When does the Electoral College meet to cast their votes? The Monday after the second Wednesday in December of presidential election years is set as the date on which the electors meet and vote, pursuant to 3 U.S.C. §7. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/7
In 2020, the meeting is on December 14.
Four years ago, during the 2012 presidential election cycle, I was watching Fox News Channel’s late-night show, Red-Eye, and “TV’s Andy Levy” was the guest host instead of the regular host, Greg Gutfeld. Levy made a comment about not understanding why the Electoral College (EC) was necessary or something to that effect. His comment made me think about all the times that I’ve explained the EC to my friends and family.
The EC is necessary because it solidifies our Representative form of government, further balances the voting powers between large and small states, helps to maintain stability during each Presidential transfer of power, and declares the winner of the presidency without the need for a majority of the popular vote.
Our Founding Fathers created the EC to further establish States’ rights since Washington D. C. was intended to be a limited federal government, where the State’s governments were supposed to be the primary governing authority that each person paid taxes to and whose laws they were subjected. The American media and public education bureaucracy have failed to regularly and properly explain to the people that the United States of America is a Representative Republic, not a regular one-person, one-vote democracy. Eugene Volokh of the Washington Post writes, “It’s true that some Framing-era commentators made arguments that distinguished “democracy” and “republic”; see, for instance, The Federalist (No. 10).” though even that first draws the distinction between “pure democracy” and a “republic,” only later just saying “democracy.” But even in that era, “representative democracy” was understood as a form of democracy, alongside “pure democracy.” (Volokh).
This difference between a representative democracy and a pure democracy seem to elude so many people in the 20th century, probably because of the laziness of the education and media bureaucracies not educating and informing people accordingly.
Very few people, both in high school and in college understand the difference between a pure democracy and America’s Representative Republic form of government and the EC. According to a 2009 report by NBC Los Angeles, on the American History Quiz by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 71% of 2,500 random Americans received an average score or 49% or an F. “[Even] Those who have held elected office lack civic knowledge; 43% do not know the EC is a constitutionally mandated assembly that elects the president. One in five thinks it “trains those aspiring for higher office” or “was established to supervise the first televised presidential debates.” (NBC Los Angeles). This confirms my assertion about the education problem concerning the EC when so many elected officials do not understand how the EC works.
According to Amy Geiger-Hemmer with Lake Country Now news, “When drafting the Constitution, the founders actually considered a direct popular vote, then dismissed it. They feared a popular vote would favor candidates from larger states, with larger populations. At the time they also debated allowing Congress to elect the President. That idea too was shot down.” (Geiger-Hemmer). The Founding Fathers created the EC to give more fairness and balance between big states and smaller states so that a candidate who wins the majority of the EC votes, which they garner when they win a state, also wins the presidency. Each state’s EC votes are based on the number of Representative districts plus the two senatorial seats allocated to that state. Richard Posner, in a Slate.com column, points to the Constitution where it, “Provides that ‘Each State shall appoint … a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.’ And it is the electors who elect the president, not the people.” (Posner).
Four years ago, during the 2012 presidential election cycle, I was watching Fox News Channel’s late-night show, Red-Eye, and “TV’s Andy Levy” was the guest host instead of the regular host, Greg Gutfeld. Levy made a comment about not understanding why the Electoral College (EC) was necessary or something to that effect. His comment made me think about all the times that I’ve explained the EC to my friends and family.
The EC is necessary because it solidifies our Representative form of government, further balances the voting powers between large and small states, helps to maintain stability during each Presidential transfer of power, and declares the winner of the presidency without the need for a majority of the popular vote.
Our Founding Fathers created the EC to further establish States’ rights since Washington D. C. was intended to be a limited federal government, where the State’s governments were supposed to be the primary governing authority that each person paid taxes to and whose laws they were subjected. The American media and public education bureaucracy have failed to regularly and properly explain to the people that the United States of America is a Representative Republic, not a regular one-person, one-vote democracy. Eugene Volokh of the Washington Post writes, “It’s true that some Framing-era commentators made arguments that distinguished “democracy” and “republic”; see, for instance, The Federalist (No. 10).” though even that first draws the distinction between “pure democracy” and a “republic,” only later just saying “democracy.” But even in that era, “representative democracy” was understood as a form of democracy, alongside “pure democracy.” (Volokh).
This difference between a representative democracy and a pure democracy seem to elude so many people in the 20th century, probably because of the laziness of the education and media bureaucracies not educating and informing people accordingly.
Very few people, both in high school and in college understand the difference between a pure democracy and America’s Representative Republic form of government and the EC. According to a 2009 report by NBC Los Angeles, on the American History Quiz by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 71% of 2,500 random Americans received an average score or 49% or an F. “[Even] Those who have held elected office lack civic knowledge; 43% do not know the EC is a constitutionally mandated assembly that elects the president. One in five thinks it “trains those aspiring for higher office” or “was established to supervise the first televised presidential debates.” (NBC Los Angeles). This confirms my assertion about the education problem concerning the EC when so many elected officials do not understand how the EC works.
According to Amy Geiger-Hemmer with Lake Country Now news, “When drafting the Constitution, the founders actually considered a direct popular vote, then dismissed it. They feared a popular vote would favor candidates from larger states, with larger populations. At the time they also debated allowing Congress to elect the President. That idea too was shot down.” (Geiger-Hemmer). The Founding Fathers created the EC to give more fairness and balance between big states and smaller states so that a candidate who wins the majority of the EC votes, which they garner when they win a state, also wins the presidency. Each state’s EC votes are based on the number of Representative districts plus the two senatorial seats allocated to that state. Richard Posner, in a Slate.com column, points to the Constitution where it, “Provides that ‘Each State shall appoint … a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.’ And it is the electors who elect the president, not the people.” (Posner).
One of the fears the Founding Fathers had was where a single state had a much larger population and a popular-vote count would allow that single state to control who becomes President. That would make politicians from that state be more inclined to run for President knowing they had that "home state" advantage. When the Electoral College was first put into place, the Founding Fathers were concerned about Virginia with over 740,000 in population with Pennsylvania being the second largest state with nearly over 430,000 in population. These numbers come at a time when the total population of the 13 states was under four million, so Virginia and Pennsylvania controlled nearly 35% of the total vote. Times have changed since then but the balance of power provided by the Electoral College still stands.
Under the pure democracy, one-person-one-vote system, when a presidential candidate comes from one of the heavily populated states with many millions of voters, like New York, Texas or California, and after the popular voting is done, only won their home state by a landslide, that candidate would become president, even if losing the other 49 states. Whereas the other candidate won 49 of the 50 states and won by a slim margin in each state and ended up with a lower total popular vote but won the EC in a landslide. Is it fair, or right, that the candidate from the really big state, who only won that single state should become president? Our Founding Fathers believed it would not be fair or right! Yes, this is an absurd scenario but this scenario further shows the reason for the EC by illustrating absurdity by being absurd.
The EC further reinforces this Representative form of government which has allowed America to have a reasonably stable government with a smoother transfer of power from one President to the next and across party lines, unlike the riot and unrest that often occurs in other countries. It is possible and has even happened on a couple of occasions where the winner of the EC had fewer popular votes. It happened in 1888, then happened again most recently in 2000 when Al Gore had more popular votes than George W. Bush, yet ended up losing the EC. Even with the controversies of that election, America still had a smooth transfer of power from President Bill Clinton’s Democratic Party control to the incoming Bush-led Republican Party.
In our state elections, not subject to the EC, we require a majority of the popular vote to win. Because of this, if no Gubernatorial or other statewide candidate wins 50% plus one, there is a run-off between the top two candidates. Posner also wrote, “The Electoral College avoids the problem of elections in which no candidate receives a majority of the votes cast. For example, [Richard] Nixon in 1968 and [Bill] Clinton in 1992 both had only a 43 percent plurality of the popular votes, while winning a majority in the Electoral College (301 and 370 electoral votes, respectively).” (Posner). Without the EC, we would have to have a run-off system similar to the States, which would drastically change when the incoming president would take office, violating the Constitution. This is one of the reasons that efforts to abolish the EC over the last 200-plus years have met with little success.
In conclusion and in simpler terms, albeit an extreme example, let’s say that one candidate won 49 states by only one vote in each state and then lost to the other candidate in only one state, but lost by 50 votes. The candidate who won that one state by 50 votes would have won the popular vote by only one vote but lost 49 out of the 50 states. Should that candidate, who won only one state but got only 50 more votes in that state, become the President when they lost the other 49 states? No, they should not, because it would not be fair to the people in the other 49 states (98%) that did not approve of the popular vote winner.
Under the pure democracy, one-person-one-vote system, when a presidential candidate comes from one of the heavily populated states with many millions of voters, like New York, Texas or California, and after the popular voting is done, only won their home state by a landslide, that candidate would become president, even if losing the other 49 states. Whereas the other candidate won 49 of the 50 states and won by a slim margin in each state and ended up with a lower total popular vote but won the EC in a landslide. Is it fair, or right, that the candidate from the really big state, who only won that single state should become president? Our Founding Fathers believed it would not be fair or right! Yes, this is an absurd scenario but this scenario further shows the reason for the EC by illustrating absurdity by being absurd.
The EC further reinforces this Representative form of government which has allowed America to have a reasonably stable government with a smoother transfer of power from one President to the next and across party lines, unlike the riot and unrest that often occurs in other countries. It is possible and has even happened on a couple of occasions where the winner of the EC had fewer popular votes. It happened in 1888, then happened again most recently in 2000 when Al Gore had more popular votes than George W. Bush, yet ended up losing the EC. Even with the controversies of that election, America still had a smooth transfer of power from President Bill Clinton’s Democratic Party control to the incoming Bush-led Republican Party.
In our state elections, not subject to the EC, we require a majority of the popular vote to win. Because of this, if no Gubernatorial or other statewide candidate wins 50% plus one, there is a run-off between the top two candidates. Posner also wrote, “The Electoral College avoids the problem of elections in which no candidate receives a majority of the votes cast. For example, [Richard] Nixon in 1968 and [Bill] Clinton in 1992 both had only a 43 percent plurality of the popular votes, while winning a majority in the Electoral College (301 and 370 electoral votes, respectively).” (Posner). Without the EC, we would have to have a run-off system similar to the States, which would drastically change when the incoming president would take office, violating the Constitution. This is one of the reasons that efforts to abolish the EC over the last 200-plus years have met with little success.
In conclusion and in simpler terms, albeit an extreme example, let’s say that one candidate won 49 states by only one vote in each state and then lost to the other candidate in only one state, but lost by 50 votes. The candidate who won that one state by 50 votes would have won the popular vote by only one vote but lost 49 out of the 50 states. Should that candidate, who won only one state but got only 50 more votes in that state, become the President when they lost the other 49 states? No, they should not, because it would not be fair to the people in the other 49 states (98%) that did not approve of the popular vote winner.
MORE -- https://info.hillsdale.edu/electoral-college-video-watch
Works Cited:
Black, Eric. MinnPost.com. 10 reasons why the Electoral College is a problem. October 16, 2012
Geiger-Hemmer, Amy L. LakeCountryNow.com. Opinion Blog. It’s Hemmer Time. Why the Electoral College is Necessary. Feb. 22, 2010.
NBC Los Angeles NBCLosAngeles.com. Study: Americans Don’t Know Much About History. July 17, 2009
Posner, Richard A. Slate.com. View From Chicago. Eric Posner Weighs In. In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the president. November 13, 2012.
Volokh, Eugene. WashingtonPost.com. The Volokh Conspiracy — Is the United States of America a republic or a democracy? May 13, 2015
Works Cited:
Black, Eric. MinnPost.com. 10 reasons why the Electoral College is a problem. October 16, 2012
Geiger-Hemmer, Amy L. LakeCountryNow.com. Opinion Blog. It’s Hemmer Time. Why the Electoral College is Necessary. Feb. 22, 2010.
NBC Los Angeles NBCLosAngeles.com. Study: Americans Don’t Know Much About History. July 17, 2009
Posner, Richard A. Slate.com. View From Chicago. Eric Posner Weighs In. In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the president. November 13, 2012.
Volokh, Eugene. WashingtonPost.com. The Volokh Conspiracy — Is the United States of America a republic or a democracy? May 13, 2015
