Electoral college reform
The electoral college gets attention every presidential election cycle as a relic of an outmoded election system. The fact is that the framers of the constitution did not expect a strong two party system to develop, nor did they expect the federal government to wield such wide-ranging powers as it does today. Both of these are good arguments for abolishing the electoral college in favor of a more representative system.
The constitution to the United States rather specifically does not include direct representation of the average citizen. Rather, it is the States that are represented at the Federal level. For a long time in our history members of the House were the ones that the average voter directly voted for in their state and the members of the Senate were appointed/elected by State legislatures.
Innovations like the Federal Elections Committee (FEC) helped to change some of that. As did the move around the turn of the 19th century for Senators to be elected through state-wide elections. The FEC regulates elections for federal elections like the President, Senate, and House, which unavoidably adds a federal flavor to such races.
One of the more frequently touted ways to reform the Electoral College is to change how states apportion their electors. In all but two states, electors are assigned to the presidential candidate who won the most votes in that state. The reform idea, which I also subscribed to until recently, was to change things so each elector votes for whomever carried their district. So winning a state would yield at least two electoral votes for the Senate electors, but the House electors would be on a per-district basis.
Unfortunately, there is a big problem with that set up. The constitution states in Article II, Section 1 that there shall be a majority of electoral votes to select a president. Not plurality, majority. As in, 270 electoral votes or more in this race. If no majority exists, the House of Representatives will select the president. For a very clear summation of how this all works here is a good explanation:
http://www.electoral-vote.com/info/electoral-college.html
It is mitigated in some sense in that it is the newly-elected house that chooses, not the one that is seated during the election. But still, in this era it would be a Bush presidency if it went to the House no matter how badly he lost the plurality. For instance, if Kerry wins 47% of the electoral votes, Bush %35, and Nader the remaining 18%, you would think that Kerry would carry the race. Not if the Republicans maintain control of the house. It would be Bush. The last election to go to the House was in the 1820's.
And here is the kicker! The part where the selection of the President by the Legislature is defined (Amendment 12) still retains the language that states that the number two vote-getter in the house-balloting will be the Vice-President. This is something that had been in the constitution for years for the general election, but was removed in the mid 1800's in favor of the current "ticket" system. I am not a lawyer, so there may be Supreme Court case-law somewhere that deals with this contingency, so don't take my word on it.
What all this means is that just going to apportioned electors won't help things much. In fact, it could lead to a Presidency selected by the House and that is something that will not sit well with the American public. No, if there is going to be reform in the electoral college it will have to be in the form of an amendment to the constitution.
The electoral college as a whole was a bitterly debated thing during the constitutional convention. It is a compromise, and an ill-fitting one. But its what we have. One of the side effects of this is that a voter in Wyoming (3 electoral votes) 'counts' more than a voter in California (55 electoral votes) for the dual reasons of the Senate seat representing less people, and the one House seat representing less people than a Rep. from CA. This gives smaller states a bigger voice in the election than they otherwise would in a purely 'straight election' environment. The reasons for this set-up are many, including the same rival opinions that gave us both a Senate and a House as well as a fear about big states (New York) dominating little states (Pennsylvania, which was small in the 1780's) in the Federal government.
Because of all of this, it is not a good idea to change how Electors are apportioned. If any reforms are to be had, it should be to reform the college as a whole. Since that will require an amendment to the constitution it will be debated in every state legislature before adoption. A constitutional crisis, Bush and Kerry tieing at 269 electoral votes, would greatly spur the desire to do so (at least among Democrats). Nothing short of that would force the change, and tinkering with the current system would be bad overall.
The constitution to the United States rather specifically does not include direct representation of the average citizen. Rather, it is the States that are represented at the Federal level. For a long time in our history members of the House were the ones that the average voter directly voted for in their state and the members of the Senate were appointed/elected by State legislatures.
Innovations like the Federal Elections Committee (FEC) helped to change some of that. As did the move around the turn of the 19th century for Senators to be elected through state-wide elections. The FEC regulates elections for federal elections like the President, Senate, and House, which unavoidably adds a federal flavor to such races.
One of the more frequently touted ways to reform the Electoral College is to change how states apportion their electors. In all but two states, electors are assigned to the presidential candidate who won the most votes in that state. The reform idea, which I also subscribed to until recently, was to change things so each elector votes for whomever carried their district. So winning a state would yield at least two electoral votes for the Senate electors, but the House electors would be on a per-district basis.
Unfortunately, there is a big problem with that set up. The constitution states in Article II, Section 1 that there shall be a majority of electoral votes to select a president. Not plurality, majority. As in, 270 electoral votes or more in this race. If no majority exists, the House of Representatives will select the president. For a very clear summation of how this all works here is a good explanation:
http://www.electoral-vote.com/info/electoral-college.html
It is mitigated in some sense in that it is the newly-elected house that chooses, not the one that is seated during the election. But still, in this era it would be a Bush presidency if it went to the House no matter how badly he lost the plurality. For instance, if Kerry wins 47% of the electoral votes, Bush %35, and Nader the remaining 18%, you would think that Kerry would carry the race. Not if the Republicans maintain control of the house. It would be Bush. The last election to go to the House was in the 1820's.
And here is the kicker! The part where the selection of the President by the Legislature is defined (Amendment 12) still retains the language that states that the number two vote-getter in the house-balloting will be the Vice-President. This is something that had been in the constitution for years for the general election, but was removed in the mid 1800's in favor of the current "ticket" system. I am not a lawyer, so there may be Supreme Court case-law somewhere that deals with this contingency, so don't take my word on it.
What all this means is that just going to apportioned electors won't help things much. In fact, it could lead to a Presidency selected by the House and that is something that will not sit well with the American public. No, if there is going to be reform in the electoral college it will have to be in the form of an amendment to the constitution.
The electoral college as a whole was a bitterly debated thing during the constitutional convention. It is a compromise, and an ill-fitting one. But its what we have. One of the side effects of this is that a voter in Wyoming (3 electoral votes) 'counts' more than a voter in California (55 electoral votes) for the dual reasons of the Senate seat representing less people, and the one House seat representing less people than a Rep. from CA. This gives smaller states a bigger voice in the election than they otherwise would in a purely 'straight election' environment. The reasons for this set-up are many, including the same rival opinions that gave us both a Senate and a House as well as a fear about big states (New York) dominating little states (Pennsylvania, which was small in the 1780's) in the Federal government.
Because of all of this, it is not a good idea to change how Electors are apportioned. If any reforms are to be had, it should be to reform the college as a whole. Since that will require an amendment to the constitution it will be debated in every state legislature before adoption. A constitutional crisis, Bush and Kerry tieing at 269 electoral votes, would greatly spur the desire to do so (at least among Democrats). Nothing short of that would force the change, and tinkering with the current system would be bad overall.
posted by Corwin at 12:29 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home