During election years, there are sustained murmers about the unfairness and antiquated nature of the electoral-college process. The foundation for these grumblings lies in the distaste for a system that was largely created to insulate the political process from uneducated masses and that can, in effect, undermine the will of a majority of the people. Apart from mere tradition, there are some characteristics of our presidential-determination scheme that, in my view, justify (maybe even require!) its further existence.
First, the electoral college makes an individual vote count more. Because the electoral college comprises a series of winner-take-all steps, the influence of a single vote has a cascading effect up from the local level to the national stage. In 2008, about 122 million votes were cast. In a pure popular-vote arrangement, that means that each individual vote is worth 1 out of 122 million or something like .00000082 % of all voters. That's a very small number. To help visualize: you can cover 288 tennis courts with 122,000,000 million quarters. The little patch covered by one quarter is your vote. Further, of the represented $ 30.5 million (in quarters), your vote is worth 25 cents. C'est pas beaucoup.
BUT! In the electoral college, your vote counts to the extent that it can tip the balance in your state (generally). California is only about 12% of the total US population. That's only 34 quarter-covered tennis courts! And most states are significantly smaller. Texas and New York (the next largest states) represent about 8 and 6 percent of the population. When the same vote is cast in a smaller pool, it is necessarily worth more. Of course, if you vote in the minority in your state, your vote doesn't count at all (maybe unless you live in Nebraska or Maine). But is the effect (that is, the risk of vote "loss") any different from voting in the minority of a direct election by popular vote? I don't think so; it just happens at a different point.
Second, it provides more certainty, which reduces the overall costs of campaigns and elections. There's a big emphasis on the swing states because the uncertainty in an election is largely limited to those areas. The eight or so (depending on the year) swing states get bombarded with ads, visits, and all sorts of campaignery. If there are eight swing states, there are 42 states where things are decided. That's 84% of the election done and decided! How often is anyone ever 84% sure of some future event? It's rare for me.
The uncertainty makes campaigns expensive. Consequently, a disproportionate amount of campaign funds are spent in swing states. One of the things I never liked about presidential campaigns is how much candidates spend. But, a lot of campaign money does go into the American economy: candidates will purchase buttons and stickers or have posters printed, etc. in 'Murrica because it would look unpatriotic if a candidate spent money abroad...so the cost isn't ALL bad. Still, can you imagine the result if all votes across all states were up for grabs under a direct-election system? I think there would be some re-allocation of currently spent funds, but I also think there would be a net increase in the cost of campaigns. There would be a corresponding, increased burden on voters to donate, which is almost like a tax even if voluntary. Under an electoral system, votes stay local--so volunteering or just talking with neighbors would have a relatively greater impact than contribution.
Third, the electoral-college scheme embodies a foundational principle of our government: tiered sovereignty. Part of our governing philosophy is a division of power over different areas. This creates diversity in approaches to legal resolutions of problems. Rules about maple-syrup grading necessary in Vermont may be wholly irrelevant in Mississippi; what's good policy in Louisiana may not be in Wisconsin, even though they're both community-property jurisdictions. The idea is that the states are just similar enough that they pay attention to and learn from one another, but have the power to take a different course. The electoral college demonstrates that dynamic. It compels solidarity within a state by sending delegates in a winner-take-all fashion, but keeps separate the consequences of one state's election from those of another state. This is the principle that makes us innovative; it makes sense that it plays out on a large scale.
While the electoral college isn't without its legitimate criticisms, I think it's generally a good system. I like the impact my vote has in a smaller pool; I like that voters aren't subjected to campaign ads where people have largely made up their minds; I like the dynamic it creates between states and nationally elected leaders. It's not perfect, but nothing humans do is. All in all, it works for me, and makes me feel like my vote means something.
Do you feel disenfranchised or empowered by the way we elect a President?
Recent Comments