University of Central Florida
09/16/2024 | Press release | Distributed by Public on 09/16/2024 10:58
Why Does the U.S. Still Have an Electoral College
Professor of History John M. Sacher will discuss the Constitution and Electoral College during the UCF Constitution Day Lunch and Learn on Sept. 17. The event, sponsored by the College of Undergraduate Studies, takes place 11:30 a.m. - 12:45 p.m. in the Student Union Key West Ballroom. Register here.
Why do we have an Electoral College? The selection of the president is outlined in perhaps the most confusing clause in the Constitution (Article II, Sec. 1). Perhaps nothing better could be expected from a measure written by the delightfully named "Committee on Postponed Parts."
Why did delegates to the Constitutional Convention struggle so much deciding upon the best method for selecting the president that they needed to postpone the debate several times?
Fear.
Learn more about this topic at the Constitution Day Lunch and Learn on Sept. 17.
They feared a strong executive. They feared Congress controlling the president. They feared men with "talents for low intrigue and the little arts of popularity" charming ill-informed voters (Federalist 68). They feared voters only supporting local candidates. They feared that the president would be subservient to any group that selected him, so instead they ended up with a cumbersome process that used specially chosen electors to elect the president.
To further complicate things, the process immediately unraveled and almost never worked as intended. Their plan was that voters would select prominent men as electors. These men (and they were, of course, all elite white men) would have a greater breadth of knowledge of gentlemen from other states, and they would be free to choose anyone they wished. Theoretically, every four years, the electors would vote for the best candidates and the nation would prosper from their wise choices.
There were a litany of things the delegates did not anticipate: political parties (they feared these, too), joint tickets for president and vice president (they planned for the person who came in second place to be vice president), candidates actively running for office, improved communication and a growing trust in democracy (The Constitution allows each state to decide how to select its own electors. So, for a time, some voters did not even get to choose the electors let alone vote for president.)
Some of these problems have been resolved. The 12th amendment ended the idea that the person who comes in second becomes the vice president. Since 1868, in every state, people vote for the president, and the state electors are generally bound by their decision.
Neither of these changes, however, have resolved the biggest complaint against the Electoral College. With electoral votes based on the number of congressmen and senators a state has, a candidate - with victories in the correct combination of states - can win the presidency while losing the popular vote.
Since the Constitution's ratification, there have been over 1,000 amendments proposed to change or eliminate the Electoral College. These proposals generally offer the obvious solution; the president should be the candidate who gets the most popular votes. Given that, according to most polls including a 2023 Pew Research Center study, approximately two out of three Americans support this change, why haven't we just amended the Constitution to have the president popularly elected? As is often the case, the easy solution is not as easy as it seems. The problems include:
-
Amending the Constitution. It is not easy to amend the Constitution. An amendment needs the support of two-thirds of each branch in Congress and three-quarters of the states. Getting congressional support has proven problematic (in 1969, Congress came close - the House approved a popular vote amendment, but the Senate did not).
While two-thirds of Americans might favor a change in the Electoral College, the current leadership of the Republican Party does not. Why not? Well, in the last 24 years, two Republicans (George W. Bush and Donald Trump) have won the presidency with fewer votes than their Democratic opponent (and 2020 almost made it a third time.)
While the electoral college currently skews Republican, that has not always been the case. In the 19 elections since World War II, it has favored Democrats nine times and Republicans ten times. Based on the 2022 midterm results and recent polling in 2024 swing states, studies also show that it might be trending towards Democrats in the upcoming years.
-
Vote fraud. Nearly every election produces allegations of vote fraud. In the current system, however, those allegations are often muted. How? The electoral college successfully smooths over most minor vote fraud. Right now, the relevant question is not whether there was any vote fraud but whether there were enough fraudulent votes to change a state's electoral vote and potentially change the results in the Electoral College.
In a popular vote world, where every vote counts, so does every fraudulent vote. Does anyone truly believe there has ever been a presidential election without fraudulent votes? Not even one or two? Unlike the Electoral College, a popular vote system encourages, albeit unintentionally, overzealous partisans to take every edge they can.
-
Close races. The 2000 presidential election is one of the elections where the popular vote winner (Al Gore) lost. It was the first time that it had happened since 1888. The race came down to a few hundred votes in Florida. Popular vote supporters use this an example of the flaws in the Electoral College, but that election also demonstrates some of the potential complications in using popular vote totals. For one thing, Gore didn't win a majority of the popular vote. No one did. He won a plurality. Because of third party candidates, Gore received 48.4% of the popular vote. Is that enough? Or would we have a runoff? How would a runoff work?
Neither party was happy with the recount procedure. Florida law stipulated it must be completed in a week, but it quickly became apparent that accurately recounting votes by hand took much more time than that. Plus, there was a sense that the recount was no more accurate than the original results. Imagine a situation where this occurred at a nationwide level. A national recount would be an incredibly complex and divisive event involving competing and unprovable sets of numbers as well as lengthy legal challenges. And, it would undoubtedly be unsatisfying as even a cursory dive into studies on the Florida vote count reveals the futility of trying to finding the exact numbers of votes that either Bush or Gore received.
We are the only nation that still uses an Electoral College. If other countries have figured out how to run a national popular presidential election, should the United States consider making a change? The nation, or maybe a new Committee on Postponed Parts, would have to come up with a plan which resolves some of these potential pitfalls. Given that this discussion has already lasted well over 100 years, we may be in for 100 more.
Professor of History John M. Sacher will discuss the Constitution and Electoral College during the UCF Constitution Day Lunch and Learn on Sept. 17. The event, sponsored by the College of Undergraduate Studies, takes place 11:30 a.m.- 12:45 p.m. in the Student Union Key West Ballroom. Register here.