Six state legislatures so far, doubtless with more to come, are considering an interstate compact that would require each of those states to give all of its electoral votes to the candidate winning the national popular vote, irrespective of how its own citizens voted, instead of to the candidate chosen by its citizens, which is by far the most popular current method.
This scheme was launched in California, naturally, where the idea germinated after the controversial 2000 election, but Louisiana, Colorado, Illinois, Missouri and New York are apparently giving it serious consideration.
This compact would take effect only when enough states have joined to control 270 or more electoral votes, thereby theoretically assuring that the presidency would go to the winner of the national popular vote.
What is wrong with this scheme? Where to begin?
The most obvious problem is the flouting of the will of a state's own voters. Suppose, for example, and this is not terribly difficult, that California voters choose the Democratic candidate. Suppose further, and this is not inconceivable, that the national popular vote goes for a Republican. How do you think Barbra Streisand, to choose a name at random, would react to the California electors voting for the Republican?
For that matter, do you think they would actually do so? Do you see a lawsuit somewhere in the future? Could the result of the election be delayed for -- oh, years -- as the case wends its way to the Supreme Court?
This proposal, designed to eliminate the perennial ones to abolish the Electoral College altogether, completely overlooks the genius of the device, and how important it is to the (relatively) smooth functioning of our electoral process.
Remember, and sometimes it is hard to, that the United States of America are (note the plural) exactly that -- a federation of states. The purpose of the Electoral College was to create a system whereby the citizens of each state had a voice in choosing the president and vice president, rather than by an overall direct popular vote. This was done to assure that no particular region could dominate the executive branch.
The College further allocates to each state a number of electors equal to its total number of senators and representatives, thereby giving smaller states disproportionate representation, exactly as the Constitution provides in Congress. This was all part of the series of compromises required to launch the U.S. of A.
The Electoral College was conceived in the absence of political parties, and originally the winner of the electoral vote became president while the runner-up became vice president.
This was changed by the Twelfth Amendment after the acrimonious election of 1800, in which Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr (yes, that Aaron Burr) received equal numbers of votes in the College, and the election was thrown into the House of Representatives where Alexander Hamilton brokered a deal to elect Jefferson, thereby earning Burr's enmity, with the well-known unfortunate result. Thereafter, the electors cast a vote for president and a separate vote for vice president.
There have been variations in the way electors have been chosen, since this is a state function not governed by the Constitution. Originally they were appointed by state legislatures, but all were directly elected by the end on the Civil War.
There have also been various ways in which the electors' votes have been cast, though currently in all but two states the winner of a plurality gets all the electoral votes. Maine and Nebraska divide the electoral votes in proportion to the popular vote.
With the development of political parties, the Electoral College has had an important, if unanticipated, effect: It (usually) makes elections simple, preserves the two-party system, and forces parties to be broad-based and inclusive.
If the president were directly elected, it would require a majority vote to elect him. Without the College, every third-, fourth- and fifth-party candidate (and they would pop up like weeds) would siphon off popular votes, preventing any candidate from winning a majority. Runoff, anyone? Recount? More lawsuits, more courts? The occasional price of a difficult election like the one in 2000 is a small one to pay to avoid a political system rivaling that of a banana republic.
Because candidates have to garner electoral votes state by state, they have to travel the country, wooing voters and building a base. If they were elected directly, they would never be seen outside of big population centers. Media advertising, which is generally paid for on a per-capita basis, would become even more necessary, if possible, and so also would money.
This new interstate compact is not only stupid, but it is also arguably unconstitutional. If the voters of a state elect A, then that state's electors vote for B, have the voters been disenfranchised? It all makes my head hurt.
Fortunately, like most bad ideas, this thing will probably crash and burn. The Electoral College may not be perfect, but it has served reasonably well for two hundred-odd years. How about leaving it alone and working on something more pressing?
Fred Wolferman lives in Southern Pines. Contact him by e-mail at fwolferman@
sbcglobal.net
