Election Analysis and Commentary
Sunday, November 12, 2000
Eric L. Davis
With the possibility that the same
presidential candidate will not win both the electoral and the popular
vote, calls for a constitutional amendment to replace the Electoral
College with direct popular vote of the president are once again
being heard in Washington. Members of Congress from both parties
- most visibly Sen.-elect Hillary Rodham Clinton (D.-NY) - are demanding
that hearings be held early in the new Congress on a constitutional
amendment that could be sent to the states for ratification in time
for new electoral rules to be in place for the presidential election
of 2004.
Hearings on reforming or replacing
the Electoral College will almost certainly be held soon after Congress
convenes in January. Whether those hearings will result in a proposed
constitutional amendment is another matter. An amendment must be
approved by a two-thirds majority in both the House and the Senate
before it can be sent to the states for ratification. Then, it must
be approved by the legislatures in at least three-fourths of the
states before it can become part of the Constitution.
Some defenders of the Electoral College
refer back to the Founders' intentions in 1787. The advocates of
this position note that the framers of the Constitution were deeply
skeptical of both direct democracy and election of the President
by the legislative branch. The Electoral College was seen as an
institution that would allow for an indirect popular role in the
election of the chief executive. However, since that popular role
was mediated through the electoral college, the choice of the populace
(at least those who were eligible to vote in the late 18th century)
was prevented from being swayed by a demagogue. By involving the
House in the election of the President only if no candidate received
a majority of the electoral vote, the President would owe his election
to an independent electoral base and would not be subject to improper
influence and pressure from Congress.
These arguments were appropriate for
the time when the Constitution was written, before the rise of political
parties and mass communications. Still, the Constitution needs to
be seen as a changing document, adaptable to the times in which
each generation lives. Election rules that were suited for 1800
may not be suited for 2000.
However, the Electoral College system
has served America well over the past two centuries. Prior to 2000,
there have been only three times since the 12th Amendment went into
effect for the election of 1804 that the winner of the popular vote
did not become President: in 1824, when no candidate received a
majority of the electoral votes and John Quincy Adams was elected
by the House; in 1876, when a disputed election was awarded to Republican
Rutherford B. Hayes over Democrat Samuel Tilden by a special committee
with an 8-7 Republican majority; and in 1888, when Republican Benjamin
Harrison received more electoral votes, but fewer popular votes,
than Democrat Grover Cleveland.
A system that has produced a clear
winner in nearly 50 presidential elections should not be casually
replaced. Additionally, the Electoral College system does force
presidential candidates to pay more attention to the concerns of
the voters in large states with substantial blocs of electoral votes:
states such as California, New York, Florida, and Michigan. These
states are reflective of the social, demographic, and cultural diversity
of the nation. It is appropriate that candidates spend much of their
time and money seeking the votes of persons residing in these large
and representative states.
The presidential nominating process
is criticized for placing too much attention on the votes of Iowa
and New Hampshire, two states that are not representative of the
nation as a whole. Moving away from the Electoral College will diminish
the influence of the nation_s major metropolitan areas in the election
of the President. (Indeed, some observers have asked why Sen.-elect
Clinton has been so quick to call for repeal of the Electoral College,
since New York is one of the major beneficiaries of that system.)
My most serious reservation about replacing
the Electoral College with direct popular vote involves the question:
if the President is directly elected, what is the minimum percentage
needed to win the office? 40 percent? 50 percent? Some other percentage?
Should the American public tolerate
a voting system that would allow a candidate who is supported by
substantially less than a majority of the voters to become the President?
This would be the effect of a 40 percent minimum. A 40 percent rule
would encourage third party candidates to run, hoping that they
could either win the presidency in a closely-divided three-way race
(as Reform Party candidate Jesse Ventura won the governorship of
Minnesota in a three-way race). Alternatively, a third-party candidate
could draw away enough votes that would otherwise go to a major-party
candidate that the public_s least preferred choice could be elected
President with a 40 percent threshold.
Third party candidates would have even
more influence if 50 percent were required to win, since such a
system would require a runoff election if no candidate received
a majority in the first round. A two-round system with a 50 percent
requirement is used in French presidential elections. In France,
multiple candidates contest the first round and then throw their
support to one of the two remaining candidates for the final runoff.
Do Americans wish to support a system with multiple candidates from
many political parties jockeying among each other during the weeks
between a first and second rounds of voting? And if there were a
runoff election, would that not exacerbate the problems associated
with long and expensive campaigns?
The Electoral College system, and the
two-party system that it supports, have served the United States
well for the past two hundred years. We should think carefully before
supporting reforms to the Electoral College that could introduce
instability into our electoral processes and lead, far more often
than under the current system, to uncertain election results.
There are some reforms in electoral
processes that are needed following this year's election. Among
these are elimination of punch-card ballots (a step taken in Massachusetts
following a 1996 contested election using these ballots) in favor
of more reliable voting systems such as optically-scanned ballots
and touch-screen voting machines; a uniform poll-closing hour across
the nation in order to prevent early broadcast of exit poll projections
from influencing voter behavior; and a requirement that all absentee
ballots be received by election day. The casting of the electoral
vote in each state could also be made automatic by requiring that
all electors vote for the presidential candidate who finishes first
in their state. (Only 26 states now have such a requirement.) Full-scale
reform of the Electoral College, although appealing, may turn out,
on closer inspection, to be an unwise proposition.
|