Counterpoint: preserving the Electoral College

International Social Science Review, Fall-Winter, 2007 by Maria Lynn McCollester

Imagine it is 1787. You are a delegate at the Constitutional Convention representing one of the original thirteen states. You have been charged with solving the multitude of problems facing the young nation by revising the Articles of Confederation. Soon, however, you and your co-delegates realize that this is more than just a revision exercise; you are creating a new method of governing. During these debates, the Electoral College was devised as a method for electing the president. It is an institution that has survived as a part of the American democratic process but its relevancy to current political realities has been questioned time and again. Many critics believe that this system is outdated and needs to be replaced with a more direct process of selecting the nation's chief executive. Because it is difficult to know the ramifications of such change, one must first consider how the Electoral College came about and how it actually functions today. Once these two points are understood, the need for the Electoral College will become evident because of its ability to maintain the system of checks and balances in American government, preserve the two-party system, and require a national president. These three aspects of America's political structure are protected by the Electoral College and each is essential for the continued stability of America's governance.

The Electoral College was established in Article Two of the U.S. Constitution. The issue of how to choose the nation's chief executive was debated during the first two months of the Constitutional Convention. As Gary Gregg, Jr., director of the McConnell Center for Political Leadership at the University of Louisville, observes, "[a]s was the case with the entire constitutional order they designed, [the delegates] had to create a balanced approach that was at once innovative in its application and prescriptive in its design." (1) Prior to their deliberations concerning the executive, which included debate over length of term and whether it would be a permanent or rotating position, the delegates at the Constitutional Convention wrestled with a vexing problem of creating a bicameral legislature. Having just concluded the "Great Compromise," which determined that membership in the House would be based on population and that in the Senate by an equal number of seats per state, the delegates had no desire to repeat that debate over the selection of the executive. They knew, however, that selection of the president would conjure up many of the same issues they had just resolved. To avoid repetition of the same traumatizing debates, they searched for a quick and balanced solution that would be beneficial to everyone. They saw the election of the executive as an extremely important part of their new nation and therefore could not let it become a divisive issue. For these delegates, this process could become a way to strengthen the system of checks and balances in the newly formed government. (2)

The delegates first addressed whether the president would be elected by a legislative body or an outside force (i.e., the electorate). Although many feared the opinion of an uneducated populace, convention delegates believed overwhelmingly that having an executive dependent upon the legislature would make the president a figurehead controlled by Congress. They did not fear the direct election of the president by the people, but sought a better system of selection that would promote a "coalesance of a popular majority, or as close to it as possible, behind one presidential candidate." (3) With this in mind, the Committee of Eleven chosen to study the matter suggested the idea of having electors from each state responsible for the selection of the president. The delegates then determined that the executive would be chosen by the states, with each state's total number of electors equal to its number of representatives in Congress, thus sustaining a balance of power between large and small states. In case of a tie in the electoral vote or the failure of any candidate to receive an absolute majority of that vote, the House of Representatives would determine the winner through a one-vote-per-state process. This was designed to protect the executive from possibly being chosen by an overwhelmingly small portion of the Senate, as had first been proposed. (4) Originally, the House of Representatives would choose the president and vice president from among the top five candidates, but following ratification of the Twelfth Amendment (1804), with the separation of ballots for both positions, the president would be chosen from among the top three. (5) Convention delegates thus devised the most fair and balanced method to meet the challenge of electing an executive with minimum disruption and argument.

Aside from understanding the origins of the Electoral College, it is also important to understand the basics of the system in order to grasp its value. The first step in the process is the popular nationwide election. From this, electors are chosen from each state to represent the overall state outcome of that election. These electors are customarily chosen by each political party and are seen as honorary designees of the state party system. Though technically free to vote for whomever they wish, they are obligated to vote for the candidate receiving the most votes in their state's general election. There have only been three states where there was or is not a winner-take-all provision for electoral votes, yet they have never altered the outcome of any presidential contest. (6) Once the electors cast their ballots, the votes form an official tally which the state verifies. This tally is then sent to the Senate where all of the votes are counted. (7) The candidate with an absolute majority in the Electoral College wins the presidency, allowing for a true representation of the public's choice.