The Electoral College

Repealing the Electoral College is an idea whose time has come! Not!

If you have paid any attention to this question – should we repeal the Electoral College? – you will have noticed that the call for repeal only happens sporadically, specifically after a presidential election elevates the candidate with an Electoral College majority but not a popular vote majority (or even plurality). Then, after only a few months, all the energy for repeal dies, waiting for the next time that electoral votes and popular votes divide us once again.

Further, those of you have paid attention to this question realize that repeal of the Electoral College will most likely benefit Democratic candidates for president and harm Republican candidates for president. In modern American history, a Democratic candidate for president won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College in 2016 (Clinton vs Trump, Trump lost by nearly 3,000,000 votes) and 2000 (Gore vs Bush, Bush lost by over 500,000 votes). In not so recent American history, in 1888 Republican Benjamin Harrison defeated Democrat Grover Cleveland (Harrison lost by 90,000 votes), and in 1876 Republican Rutherford B Hayes defeated Democrat Samuel J Tilden (Hayes lost by 250,000 votes). Putting the coincidence of history aside, it makes sense that Democrats do better with popular votes than electoral votes as Democrats have cast themselves as the party of the people, while Republicans always talk up states’ rights rather than popular rule. In consequence of which, there is little chance that repeal can happen (as it requires a Constitutional amendment, not just a Democrat in the White House and a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress), as it would empower Democrats at the expense of Republicans (IOW, it is not really a bi-partisan issue, an absolute necessity for ratification).

Why do we have an Electoral College in the first place? Because states not people voted to ratify the Constitution; small states (like Delaware and Rhode Island) had the same power to ratify as big states, one vote apiece. And small states were (justly) concerned with having virtually no power in the new union, compared to large states like New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia; so they demanded having a bigger say in electing the president, and the Electoral College was that way. The Electoral College was not just that the candidate who wins the popular vote in each state wins all that state’s electoral votes; that part (called “winner take-all”) does not necessarily benefit the small states. As each state’s electoral vote was the sum of the number of House seats they were entitled to – plus two (one for each senator) – the benefit was that extra two electoral votes (a state with a population of 700,000 has an electoral count of three, one for the 700,000 population and an extra two for their senators, while a state with a 7,000,000 population – ten times the size – has an electoral count of twelve, one for each 700,000 population and an extra two for the senators. The state with ten times the population has only four times the Electoral College count, twelve vs three; THAT is the small state advantage).

While repeal is impossible, I do believe that there is a way to skin this cat. A good case can be made for either side of this argument, and I have laid it out above. But as long as the Electoral College benefits Republicans and repeal would benefit Democrats, nothing will happen, as Constitutional amendments require super-majority support.

How can we skin the cat? Keep the Electoral College; whoever wins the College wins the presidency. Apportion all but two of each state’s electoral votes to the candidates according to the state's popular vote, but give both of its senatorial votes to the candidate who wins the overall popular vote in the state. This is a nod to small state concerns at the same time as popular vote concerns. Examples. Three vote states like Montana, Wyoming, North and South Dakota would experience no change. They would still have the small state benefit of that extra two electoral votes. The big states would lose big state power (all 55 of California’s electoral votes going to the candidate with a small margin of victory) in exchange for popular power (dividing up 53 of its 55 electoral votes proportionately among the candidates, maybe 29-24). Using California in 2016 as an example, Jill Stein (Green) would have received one electoral vote, Gary Johnson (Libertarian) would have received two electoral votes, Donald Trump (Republican) would have received 17 electoral votes and Hillary Clinton (Democrat) would have received 35 electoral votes (33 apportioned plus two), for a total of 55 electoral votes. Would this scheme have resulted in a Clinton victory in 2016? I don’t know. You do the math. What I do know is this form of Electoral College retains the small state benefit while introducing the popular vote into the equation (by the elimination of winner-take-all state apportionment).

This version of altering how the Electoral College works will not require a Constitutional amendment.  Or even federal legislation.  Individual states may define how they apportion their Electoral College electors, that is their right! Each state may go with winner-take-all or with the apportionment I have outlined above. Indeed, there is no reason that the United States might not end up with a mixed system, some states winner-take-all, others apportioned. Indeed#2, there are two ways that an apportioned scheme might be implemented: allocate electors one at a time to the winner of the popular vote in each Congressional district or allocate electors proportionately according to the state’s overall popular vote (as above with the California example).

Something to think about on an Easter Sunday!  Happy Easter!!!