.png)
 |
| Grayson Ford Class of 2021 |
Recently the Electoral College has been a topic for debate more frequently than in the past. The reason for this is that now, for the fourth time in American history, the winner of the presidential election has not been the candidate winning the popular vote. This has lead many voters to feel apathetic about the voting process. Many were even outraged and felt the need to protest the results with chants “She got more votes!” Some who even have a better understanding of the Electoral College than most would still pose the question “What benefits does it (the Electoral College) have?”
But why do those questions matter? One reason is the country seems to be very split on this issue. In fact, in a poll conducted by CBS News, the results showed that 54% of Americans are in favor to doing away with the Electoral College and 41% would like to keep it, with some responding with indifference. Also, of the four times that the Electoral College’s result has differed to that of the popular vote, two have occurred in the last twenty years. The fact is that this is a pressing issue because though this system poses many benefits, many are unhappy with it.
To better understand the benefits of the Electoral College one must already have a grasp of what it is and its function as a whole. Of course, the Electoral College is the system used for electing the president of the United States of America. It is made up of 538 electors with a majority (270) needed to win the race. It is simply a method of counting. Each state receives the number of electors they have in the House of Representatives and the Senate with the District of Columbia receiving three electors. An overwhelming majority of states have a winner-takes all system in allocating theses electors. After the general election, the electors meet on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December after the general election. The electors meet in their respective states, where each elector will cast one vote for President and one vote for Vice President on separate ballots.
But what benefits does this system have over letting the popular vote decide? One is that it almost mandates that candidates travel to places they would not travel to during the campaign. The fact that candidates have to travel to somewhat rural areas to win some states means that they have to appeal to an audience that is not a part of a huge population center such as Chicago, New York, Boston, Pittsburg, etc. This gives these areas representation that they otherwise might not have. If one were to look at the data from the presidential election of 2000, they would see that Al Gore did win the popular vote. They would also see he won nearly 600,000 square miles of counties to President Bush’s 2.5 million. These numbers were produced by Huntington College. This election more than likely largely impacted how Democrats would campaign for the presidency in the future. So again, the data suggests that the Electoral College makes candidates pay attention to people and areas which they normally would not in order to win, most would agree this is a huge benefit to the Electoral College.
The Electoral College also ensures that the president will have transregional appeal. In addition to encouraging candidates to visit less populated or “rural” areas as discussed earlier, the Electoral College ensures the president will represent a larger geographical area regionally as well. This is because no single region of the United States such as the South, Northeast, Midwest, East coast or West coast has enough electoral votes to decide the presidency alone. Therefore, candidates that are only able to appeal to one particular region of the country will not be very successful. People want their president to have concerns for their interests. Geographical representation is an effect the Electoral College has had, and will continue to have; and to many that is a desirable effect.
It can also be argued that the Electoral College brings more legitimacy to the office of president. You might be wondering how this is possible if they received less votes than another candidate. There have been instances in American history where the winner of the popular vote still did not take a majority. Examples include Nixon in 1968 and Clinton in 1992 where both candidates took 43%. The fact that every president has had a majority in electoral votes brings legitimacy to the system and the person winning the election. The Director of the University of Louisville McConnell Center seems to agree with this. In fact, on the topic of the Electoral College guaranteeing a winner and avoiding run-offs Dr. Gregg claimed “The Electoral college is a method of counting; and that method of counting has given us a president every time. So that is the end to that, it works.”
A common objection to the Electoral College is the fact that some of the electors could “defect” or ignore the wishes of their state. However, this almost never happens. It has never been a factor in changing the outcome of an election. Dr. Gregg claims that this is because “these people are strong partisans who are picked inherently because they are so likely to vote the result of their state.” This argument seems good on the surface, but carries no weight because of the fact defectors rarely exist and never influence the outcome.
Many opponents of the Electoral College believe that it divides us or breeds polarization. However, it seems more likely that it creates less division than a popular vote system would. Of course the Electoral college will favor a two party system as Duverger’s Law would suggest. In fact, the last independent to be elected president was George Washington and the last independent to receive any electoral votes was George Wallace in 1968. This system makes candidates appeal more to the middle of the aisle which is great considering more and more Americans are favoring candidates that are more moderate. This means ideologically, that the president elected will represent more people than if a multi-party system were possible as it could be if the popular vote decided the president. For a nation that is more polarized than ever on the congressional scale, having a more moderate president should be desirable.
The fact is, all the data suggests that the Electoral College makes the presidential election more competitive. Most people, even those opposing the Electoral College, can agree that is a positive characteristic. It is a system where no party is ever truly dominate over a long period of time. If you hate tyranny of the majority then you should be a huge supporter of the Electoral College. It is a system where Bill Clinton can win, four years later George bush can win, eight years later Barack Obama can win, and eight years later Donald Trump can win. The fact is that without it in today’s America, Democrats would have a lock on the presidency because they would be able to concentrate more on those large population centers in which they already possess an overwhelming advantage.
It is evident that though the Electoral College has created a great deal of apathy among the American people, it is still a useful system. It would be short sighted to believe that the cure for the ills of democracy is more democracy. This system provides a certainty of outcome, rural and urban representation, transregional representation, less polarization, and competitive elections. Hopefully it has been made clear that these advantages far outweigh this system’s shortcomings. Although it is not perfect, it works and many would argue it works very well.
Grayson Ford, of Cadiz, Ky., is a freshman McConnell Scholar studying political science and finance.