Donald Lewis Schaefer: Don't Mess With the Electoral College
[Mr. Schaefer is professor of political science at College of the Holy Cross.]
With their appeal to independents, Barack Obama and John McCain may scramble the electoral map in November. Others want to go further and throw out the Electoral College completely, replacing this "complicated" and "undemocratic" system with a direct, nationwide popular vote for the presidency. Despite its democratic allure, it's a bad idea.
Backers of the popular vote do not seek to amend the Constitution; they know this is a nonstarter. Instead, a growing "National Popular Vote" (NPV) movement wants state legislatures to instruct their electors to vote for the winner of the greatest number of popular votes in the national election -- regardless of the ballots cast by voters in their own states.
Massachusetts (12 electoral votes) may enact an NPV law as early as next week. Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey and Hawaii (with a total of 50 electoral votes) have already signed on. It's being considered in North Carolina, Rhode Island and California. To succeed, the plan needs to enlist just enough states to command 270 electoral votes, or a majority of the Electoral College.
But NPV advocates fail to understand how the Electoral College system contributes to effective presidential leadership and representative government -- or to appreciate the problems that could arise if it is changed.
Counting electoral votes by state, in conjunction with the "winner-take-all" procedure followed by all states except Maine and Nebraska, favors the two-party system. It also ensures that the winner will have geographically broad (rather than merely sectional) support, and will be at least acceptable to the vast majority of the electorate.
Today voters have little incentive to vote for candidates nominated by minor parties such as the Libertarians, the Greens or Ross Perot's 1992 Reform Party. Since winning even 30% of the vote nationwide is likely to yield very few (if any) electoral votes, most voters wind up choosing one of the two major-party candidates.
Those who think that fact a vice should consider the alternative. Under NPV, states commit their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of how small a percentage of the overall vote that candidate wins. Thus a candidate whom a large majority of Americans finds highly unacceptable might become the next president. That's because the NPV would encourage more minor-party or "insurgent" candidates who'd been denied the nomination of one of the major parties.
Another problem: If vote totals are close, the losing candidate has a strong incentive to demand recounts or challenge voting procedures in every state, regardless of how badly he lost. After all, "every vote counts." Imagine the Florida debacle of 2000 spread across dozens of states, every four years.
Is there really any need to abolish the existing system, just because candidates who "lose" the popular vote by a small margin sometimes come out on top in the electoral vote? The true purpose of an electoral system is not to ensure that the presidential candidate preferred by 51% of the electorate is chosen. Rather, it is to choose an effective leader whom even most supporters of the losing major-party candidate will regard as tolerable -- so that the government is perceived as representing the people as a whole, not just victorious partisans.
Read entire article at WSJ
With their appeal to independents, Barack Obama and John McCain may scramble the electoral map in November. Others want to go further and throw out the Electoral College completely, replacing this "complicated" and "undemocratic" system with a direct, nationwide popular vote for the presidency. Despite its democratic allure, it's a bad idea.
Backers of the popular vote do not seek to amend the Constitution; they know this is a nonstarter. Instead, a growing "National Popular Vote" (NPV) movement wants state legislatures to instruct their electors to vote for the winner of the greatest number of popular votes in the national election -- regardless of the ballots cast by voters in their own states.
Massachusetts (12 electoral votes) may enact an NPV law as early as next week. Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey and Hawaii (with a total of 50 electoral votes) have already signed on. It's being considered in North Carolina, Rhode Island and California. To succeed, the plan needs to enlist just enough states to command 270 electoral votes, or a majority of the Electoral College.
But NPV advocates fail to understand how the Electoral College system contributes to effective presidential leadership and representative government -- or to appreciate the problems that could arise if it is changed.
Counting electoral votes by state, in conjunction with the "winner-take-all" procedure followed by all states except Maine and Nebraska, favors the two-party system. It also ensures that the winner will have geographically broad (rather than merely sectional) support, and will be at least acceptable to the vast majority of the electorate.
Today voters have little incentive to vote for candidates nominated by minor parties such as the Libertarians, the Greens or Ross Perot's 1992 Reform Party. Since winning even 30% of the vote nationwide is likely to yield very few (if any) electoral votes, most voters wind up choosing one of the two major-party candidates.
Those who think that fact a vice should consider the alternative. Under NPV, states commit their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of how small a percentage of the overall vote that candidate wins. Thus a candidate whom a large majority of Americans finds highly unacceptable might become the next president. That's because the NPV would encourage more minor-party or "insurgent" candidates who'd been denied the nomination of one of the major parties.
Another problem: If vote totals are close, the losing candidate has a strong incentive to demand recounts or challenge voting procedures in every state, regardless of how badly he lost. After all, "every vote counts." Imagine the Florida debacle of 2000 spread across dozens of states, every four years.
Is there really any need to abolish the existing system, just because candidates who "lose" the popular vote by a small margin sometimes come out on top in the electoral vote? The true purpose of an electoral system is not to ensure that the presidential candidate preferred by 51% of the electorate is chosen. Rather, it is to choose an effective leader whom even most supporters of the losing major-party candidate will regard as tolerable -- so that the government is perceived as representing the people as a whole, not just victorious partisans.