Two previous columns on the origins of the Electoral College have sparked questions from discerning readers across the state who wonder why the United States continues to utilize this peculiar method of electing the president when the rationales and justifications for its creation have long since vanished. The Framers’ reasons for rejecting direct election of the president—lack of communication, transportation and adequate knowledge of the qualifications and credentials of candidates—are no longer relevant. As many have observed, we sometimes know more about candidates than we care to know. In any case, these readers are among the 63 per cent of American voters, according to a September poll conducted by the Pew Research Center, who believe the nation’s highest office should be the winner of a direct popular election.
Defenders of a direct election view the Electoral College as an outdated, undemocratic institution that does not contain fraud, but actually magnifies it and, contrary to assertions, does not serve the interests of small states. On five occasions—1824, 1876, 1888, 2000 and 2016—the president and vice president have been elected without winning the popular vote. In ten presidential elections between 1848 and 2020, a shift in a small number of popular votes in one, two or three states would have elected the presidential candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide. Thwarting the will of the people, North Dakotans recognize, is not a viable means for sustaining constitutional principles and republican values.
Readers wonder why voters across America cannot be treated equally, and why they cannot elect the president as we elect every member of Congress, every governor, and virtually every elected official in the nation. Direct election of the president, it is noted, would ensure the people’s choice through equal treatment of voters. It would, unlike the Electoral College, conform to our nation’s underlying commitment to the equality of all citizens and promote the principle that votes would count the same, no matter where they are cast. It is true, moreover, that counting all votes equally would provide an incentive for presidential candidates to speak to the issues of concern to voters everywhere and clarify their positions instead of hedging to win the support of voters in particular states that are more competitive than others. In the Constitutional Convention, James Madison emphasized that, “The President is to act for the people not for States.”
Readers expressed concern that the Electoral College leaves them feeling like “outsiders” in their own country as they watch coverage of intense campaigns in the six or seven “battleground” states that will determine the outcome of the election. The feeling of political alienation—the inability to influence the outcome of an election-- is common and leads to voter apathy, depressed turnout in elections and, indeed, decreased participation in the entire sphere of electoral politics, which runs counter to the democratic goal of widespread civic engagement. There is nothing intrinsically special about swing states; rather, they are simply geographical accidents that are competitive because of their demographical traits, which are identifiable through sophisticated methods of political polling. Those same methods can be used anywhere and everywhere, and would be used, to identify voters in a direct popular election. In a genuine national election, in which every vote counted equally, presidential candidates would have to take their campaigns, and make their cases, to the entire nation. As things stand, candidates ignore roughly two-thirds of the country, choosing to focus their time, energy and resources on half a dozen states.
If a truly national election were held, Americans would have incentive to vote in elections because they would know that they could influence the results of the race for the presidency. In turn, candidates and political parties would have every incentive to turn out voters—wherever they live—which would foster deeper citizen participation and engagement in the process for determining the nation’s chief executive and thus the direction of the country in both foreign and domestic policy.
Questions from readers included, as well, whether the abolition of the Electoral College requires a constitutional amendment, whether it contains and limits electoral fraud, or magnifies it, and whether it serves the interests of small states, as often argued. These excellent questions deserve attention and will be addressed next week. As always, I welcome and encourage questions.
David Adler is president of The Alturas Institute, created to advance American Democracy through promotion of the Constitution, civic education, equal protection and gender equality. He has lectured nationally and internationally on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. His scholarly writings have been quoted by the US Supreme Court, lower federal courts and by both Republicans and Democrats in Congress.
Comments