Many observers believe the Electoral College introduces complications
and potential problems into our political system. These concerns
include some of the following
Grossly unequal distribution of campaign resources
Unequal voting power depending on where you live
The Electoral College gives disproportionate voting power to states,
favoring the smaller states with more electoral votes per person.
For instance, each individual vote in Wyoming counts nearly four
times as much in the Electoral College as each individual vote in Texas.
This is because Wyoming has three (3) electoral votes for a population
of 532,668 citizens (as of 2008 Census Bureau estimates) and Texas has
thirty-two (32) electoral votes for a population of almost 25 million.
By dividing the population by electoral votes, we can see that Wyoming
has one "elector" for every 177,556 people and Texas has one "elector"
for about every 715,499. The difference between these two states of
537,943 is the largest in the Electoral College.
The small states were given additional power to prevent politicians
from only focusing on issues which affect the larger states. The fear
was that without this power, politicians would completely ignore small
states and only focus on big population centers.
Ironically, there is a study that concludes that larger states are
actually at an advantage in the Electoral College. Because almost all
states give all of its electors to whichever candidate wins the most
votes within that state, candidates must win whole states in order to
win the presidency. Naturally, candidates tend to concentrate resources
on the largest payoffs, the states which can provide the greatest number
of electoral votes.
For a history of the development of the Electoral College, see William C. Kimberling's essay,
A Brief History of the Electoral College. Kimberling was the Deputy Director of the FEC's Office of Election Administration.
Looking at the Numbers: Minority Rules
Just how many people elect the president of the United States? The answer may surprise you.
Consider the 2000 presidential elections. Even though more than 100
million people voted in the election, only a small portion of those
votes in fact were decisive. Indeed, the results would have been exactly
the same even if nearly 80 million of those voters would have stayed
home.
Here's what we mean:
- Total number of votes cast nationwide in Presidential elections:
- 105,396,641 in 2000
- 131, 338,626 in 2008
- Total number of votes cast for the winner in their states won:
- 26,353,058 in 30 states for George W. Bush
- 39,908,351 in 29 states (including DC) for Barack Obama
- Total number of votes that did not factor in determining the winner of the president in their respective years:
- To win the Electoral College in 2000, Bush needed only 21,835,615 votes out of a total of 105,396,641 votes.
- To win the Electoral College in 2008, Obama needed only 39,908,351 votes out of a total of 131,338,626 votes.
- Percentage of votes that did not factor in determining the winner in their respective years:
- 79.28% in 2000
- 70.39% in 2008
The winner-take-all method of distributing electoral votes
The Electoral College favors the smaller states with disproportionate
voting power. Advocates of the system say that this uneven power forces
politicians to pay attention to smaller states, which would otherwise
be ignored.
Despite its intentions, the Electoral College does not encourage politicians to campaign in every state.
Some states are still excluded from the campaign; these are not
necessarily the small states, but rather they are states that are not
viewed as competitive.
Since all but two states allocate their votes via a winner-take-all
method, there is no reason for a candidate to campaign in a state that
clearly favors one candidate. As an example, Democratic candidates have
little incentive to spend time in solidly Republican states, like Texas,
even if many Democrats live there. Conversely, Republican candidates
have little incentive to campaign in solidly Democratic states, like
Massachusetts, especially when they know that states like Florida and
Michigan are toss-ups.
The winner-take-all rule also leads to lower voter turnout in states
where one party is dominant, because each individual vote will be
overwhelmed by the majority and will not, in effect, "count" if the
winner takes all the electoral votes.
Unbound electors
There is no federal law that requires electors to vote as they have
pledged, but 29 states and the District of Columbia have legal control
over how their electors vote in the Electoral College. This means their
electors are bound by state law and/or by state or party pledge to cast
their vote for the candidate that wins the statewide popular vote. At
the same time, this also means that there are 21 states in the union
that have no requirements of, or legal control over, their electors.
Therefore, despite the outcome of a state’s popular vote, the state’s
electors are ultimately free to vote in whatever manner they please,
including an abstention, with no legal repercussions. Even in the states
that do have control, often the punishment or repercussion is slim or
nothing (some states issue only minimal fines as punishment), although
some states instigate criminal charges ranging from a simple misdemeanor
to a fourth degree felony. The states with legal control over their
electors are the following 29 and D.C.:
- Alabama (Code of Ala. §17-19-2)
- Alaska (Alaska Stat. §15.30.090)
- California (Election Code §6906)
- Colorado (CRS §1-4-304)
- Connecticut (Conn. Gen. Stat. §9-176)
- Delaware (15 Del C §4303)
- District of Columbia (§1-1312(g))
- Florida (Fla. Stat. §103.021(1))
- Hawaii (HRS §14-28)
- Maine (21-A MRS §805)
- Maryland (Md Ann Code art 33, §8-505)
- Massachusetts (MGL, ch. 53, §8)
- Michigan (MCL §168.47)
- Mississippi (Miss Code Ann §23-15-785)
- Montana (MCA §13-25-104)
- Nebraska (§32-714)
- Nevada (NRS §298.050)
- New Mexico (NM Stat Ann §1-15-9)
- North Carolina (NC Gen Stat §163-212)
- Ohio (ORC §248.355)
- South Carolina (SC Code Ann §7-19-80)
- Tennessee (Tenn Code Ann §2-15-104(c))
- Utah (Utah Code Ann §20A-13-304)
- Vermont (17 VSA §2732)
- Virginia (§24.2-203)
- Washington (RCW §29.71.020)
- Wisconsin (Wis Stat §7.75)
- Wyoming (Wyo Stat §22-19-108)
Most of these state laws generally assert that an elector shall cast
his or her vote for the candidates who won a majority of the state's
popular vote or for the candidate of the party that nominated the
elector.
Over the years, however, despite legal oversight, a number of
electors have violated their state's law binding them to their pledged
vote. However, these violators often only face being charged with a
misdemeanor or a small fine, usually $1,000. Many constitutional
scholars agree that electors remain free agents despite state laws and
that, if challenged, such laws would be ruled unconstitutional.
Therefore, electors can decline to cast their vote for a specific
candidate (the one that wins the popular vote of their state), either
voting for an alternative candidate, or abstaining completely. In fact,
in the 2000 election, Barbara Lett-Simmons, an elector for the District
of Columbia, cast a blank ballot for president and vice president in
protest of the District's unfair voting rights.
Indeed, when it comes down to it, electors are ultimately free to
vote for whom they prersonally prefer, despite the general public's
desire.
This inconsistency allows for discrepancies in our electoral system.
The electors from nearly half of the states can vote however they wish,
regardless of the popular will of the state.
In the founding of our nation, the Electoral College was established
to prevent the people from making "uneducated" decisions. The founders
feared uneducated public opinion and designed the Electoral College as a
layer of insulation from the direct voice of the masses.
There is no reason, in this modern day, to assign this responsibility
to a set of individual electors. Hundreds of thousands of votes can and
have been violated by an individual elector, choosing to act on his or
her own behalf instead of the behalf of the people.
As of the 2008 election, since the founding of the Electoral College,
157 electors have not cast their votes for the candidates who they were
designated to represent.
House of Representatives can choose the president
If no candidate receives a majority of the electoral votes, the
presidential vote is deferred to the House of Representatives and the
vice presidential vote is deferred to the Senate. This could easily lead
to a purely partisan battle, instead of an attempt to discover which
candidate the citizens really prefer.
If the Senate and the House of Representatives reflect different
majorities, meaning that they select members of opposing parties, the
offices of president and vice president could be greatly damaged. This
potential opposition in the presidential office would not be good for
the stability of the country or the government.
Enforcement of a two-party system
Because of our two-party system, voters often find themselves voting
for the "lesser of two evils," rather than a candidate they really feel
would do the best job. The Electoral College inadvertently reinforces
this two party system, where third parties cannot enter the race without
being tagged as "spoilers."
Since most states distribute their electoral votes on a
winner-take-all basis, the smaller party has no chance to gain support
without seeming to take this support from one of the major parties. Few
people will support a party that never wins, especially when they are
supporting that party at the possible expense of their least favorite
candidate taking power (as happened to Nader/Gore supporters in 2000 and
Perot/Bush supporters in 1992).
Presidency can be won without a majority of the popular vote
As the 2000 election demonstrated, it is possible for a president to
be elected without winning the popular vote. Nor was the Bush/Gore
election the first time a presidential candidate has won the presidency
while someone else claimed a plurality of the votes cast. Andrew Jackson
and Samuel Tilden won the popular vote in 1824 and 1876 respectively,
only to see someone else walk into the White House.
As an even more common occurrence is for a presidential candidate to
win both the presidency and the popular vote without actually winning a
majority of all ballots cast. This has happened 16 times since the
founding of the Electoral College, most recently in 2000. In every one
of the elections, more than half of the voters voted against the
candidate who was elected.
With such a winner-take-all system, it is impossible to tell which
candidate the people really prefer, especially in a close race.
Bailey Comment: This is a old chain email that has been going around forever. It maybe true or not. But if the government keeps on keeping on like their doing now this will probably happen!
