Every year at this time, the NCAA Men’s & Women’s Basketball Tournament reminds us all how democracy is supposed to work. Sixty-four teams (sixty-six, if you count the play-ins) compete in each tournament: win and play again; lose and go home. The last man/woman standing is crowned our National Champion. Simple.
But that’s not the March Madness I’m talking about here. No; it’s Elizabeth Warren’s recent idea to do away with the Electoral College. Is it March Madness or March Genius? Let’s take a look…
The Electoral College convenes every four years for the sole purpose of electing the President and Vice-President of the United States. Each state is entitled to a number of Electors equal to the combined total of that state’s membership in the US Senate and House of Representatives. Additionally, pursuant to the 23rd Amendment to the Constitution, the District of Columbia is entitled to a number of Electors equal to the number of Electors from the least populous state(s) which is currently 3. (The other least populous states are North and South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Alaska, and Hawaii.) That adds to 538 Electors; and absolute majority of 270 Electors is required to win the election.
Additionally, Article II of the US Constitution (Section 1, Clause 2 for those of you who enjoy spending time in the weeds) specifies that the legislature of each state may determine the manner in which its Electors are chosen. After each Presidential election day (the first Tuesday in November or November 3, 2020 if you happen to be counting down), each state counts its popular votes and determines how its Electors will cast their votes. In 2016, Donald Trump received 304 electoral votes, Hillary Clinton received 278. (Three other candidates received electoral votes including Bernie Sanders who received 1 of Hawaii’s electoral votes and Spotted Owl who received 1 of Washington’s.) The irony, of course is that Ms. Clinton won the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes. And therein lies the Electoral rub.
It would seem that the Electoral College is an inherently anti-democratic institution, that it undermines the notion of “one person, one vote.” Proponents of the College argue that it is fundamental to American Federalism and requires candidates to appeal to rural areas as well as to larger urban populations. Opponents criticize the system saying it encourages candidates to focus on a few “swing states” and gives a few states with small populations a disproportionally large influence in national elections. They also rue the fact that the Electoral College may result in a one candidate winning the popular vote but losing the election. They may have a point: that confusing result has already happened twice in this Century (2000 and 2016).
In several polls taken since 1967, a majority of Americans favor with doing away with the Electoral College, calling it anachronistic, a relic of our nation at the time of the Founding Fathers (and Mothers). Yet it remains. Now along comes Ms. Warren’s proposal to abolish the Electoral College because she “wants every vote to matter.” Many agree with her: let the popular vote decide; don’t ‘delegitimize’ an election by declaring a candidate with fewer popular votes the winner.
Ms. Warren’s proposal has its critics, to say the least. Senator Lindsay Graham says Democrats “want rural America to just go away politically.” Senator Marco Rubio thinks the Electoral College is “a work of genius.” Not surprisingly, Mr. Trump defends the College by claiming that “cities would end up running the country…and we don’t want that!”
Which brings me back to the NCAA Basketball Tournament. It’s about clear winners and losers. Score more points and play on. Score fewer points and go home. Simple. But basketball tournaments and national elections in a Federalist Republic are not the same thing. Our Founders knew that the tyranny of the majority was a dangerous beast that had the potential to result in something more akin to mob rule than true democracy. They preferred a system with more checks and balances. The Electoral College may have its conceptual problems but it may also protect us from the beast.
I’ll be right back.
Jamie Kirkpatrick is a writer and photographer with homes in Chestertown and Bethesda. His work has appeared in the Washington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Washington College Alumni Magazine, and American Cowboy magazine. “A Place to Stand,” a book of photographs and essays about Landon School, was published by the Chester River Press in 2015. A collection of his essays titled “Musing Right Along” was published in May 2017; a second volume of Musings entitled “I’ll Be Right Back” was released in June 2018. Jamie’s website is www.musingjamie.com
Bob Parker says
Re: March Madness by Jaime Kirkpatrick
While the Electoral College has flaws, I do not believe it should be scrapped. However, modification to address those flaws is in order. Current dissatisfaction with the Electoral College stems from it’s inherent bias in favor of small states. One way to minimize this bias is to have electoral votes awarded on the basis of congressional district results with the candidate who Garner’s the most votes statewide receiving the 2 “extra” votes from each states 2 Senate members. Such a change would not require a Constitutional amendment. However, this would not address the penalty large population states have where each population-based elector (i.e., those based on the number of House Representatives) represent a greater number of residents. As a consequence of placing an upper limit on the number of Representatives in Congress (due largely to the size of the House chamber) the elector representing the “House member” vote from our least populous state, Wyoming(approximately 500,000) represents few people that a single elector from California, NY, Texas or Florida. By changing the number of population-based electors assigned to each state to represent the same 500,000 residents, and by awarding electors on the basis of electoral districts won, and awarding only 1 elector for having the most votes in a state, the number of electors would be 703 (650 + 50 + 3) and require 352 to win the presidency. While this change would require a Constitutional amendment, this system would minimize the chance of a minority president while still creating an incentive for each candiito run a nationwide campaign as each electoral district and state would be of equal value. This would preserve our Founding Father’s plan to minimize both the tyranny of the majority and the tyranny of the minority