With the elections over, and the possibility of a Clinton victory in the popular vote despite an electoral Trump victory, raises the question of the electoral college and its role in American politics. The electoral college was created out of a concern of the founding fathers of the democratic "mob". This "mob" was personified at the time by Daniel Shays, who as we learned in class protested against government collection of taxes. The indirect election of the president by electors both solved a practical technological problem arising from slow transportation speeds, but more importantly secured a conservative federalist aspect of government. In "The Federalist Papers: No. 68", written by Hamilton, he argues for the use of electors, claiming:
"It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations."
Essentially, Hamilton argues that electors must be chosen by the people so that they can deliberate the decision of who to elect given their expertise and experience in politics.
An example of the shortcomings of the electoral college was seen in the election of 1888. Incumbent Democrat Grover Cleveland won the popular vote, but lost the electoral vote to Republican Benjamin Harrison. Harrison gained his support from the North and the West, supporting the tariff and the expansion of industry. Other instances occurred where the electoral college has decided differently than the popular vote, but those such as the election of 1824 (The "Corrupt Bargain") and that of 1876 (Compromise of 1877) involved other consequences which were not purely a mathematical result of the electoral college process.
Another interesting outcome of the electoral college is the impact of votes in various states. The number of electors for a state is determined by the sum of its seats in the House of Representatives and Senate. From this arises the issue that the minimum number of electors for a state is 3 (2 Senators and 1 Representative). This means that, for example, Wyoming, a state with a population of roughly 584,153 today, getting three electors, has about 194,717 voters per electoral vote. Compare that to California, a state with a population of about 38.8 million, which gets 55 electoral votes. That comes out to about 705454 voters per electoral vote. This means that a voter in Wyoming has over 3.5 times the voting influence of a voter in California.
There are proposals to amend the electoral college process. The most popular one as of now is called the National Popular Vote. It is essentially an agreement between states to cast their electors for the winner of the national popular vote. It requires no laws to be passed officially, and has been signed by 11 states with 165 electoral votes. Once it is signed by states amassing to over 270 electoral votes, it would come into action and determine the outcome of the U.S. presidential election regardless of the other states.
Sources:
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/
https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/about.html
The American Pageant
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp
I think this was very useful in helping understand why Trump won the election even though Hilary won the popular vote. I found the last paragraph to be a little confusing about the proposal and wish you would have elaborated more on it because it sounds interesting. Overall, great summary of the elections and the explanation behind the winner of the electoral votes.
ReplyDeleteVery well-researched post - you not only give background, but also discuss how the debate has continued into contemporary times. I think another factor to consider is how the electoral college truly affects campaigning. We see that, due to the electoral college, candidates travel to states they may not have originally decided to go to if the popular vote was enacted. For example, while under the popular vote, states like Ohio or Wyoming may not be important, under the electoral college, they are vital. However, on the other side of that same spectrum, the electoral college has made states such as New York, Texas, and California nothing more than areas with donors. Our vote, here in California, most likely means little to none. Thus, the question remains, how do you compromise between the two sides of the debate?
ReplyDeleteI personally think the compromise is very clear. Federal policy affects more people in bigger states, because there are more people in those states. I do not think that there is a moral wrong in candidates not visiting smaller states. While the U.S. is comprised of 50 states, those boundaries are similarly sized geographically, and not by population, and geography plays little to no role in the importance of one citizen over another. Additionally, in modern times the federal government has much more influence than it did when the electoral college was designed to give power to states. Examples of this include the historically high federal income tax and the federal reserve. While I agree the electoral college is effective at giving smaller states an influence, in my opinion, that objective is utterly useless and obsolete in 21st century America.
DeleteGreat post. You were very elaborate in ecplaining the flaws in our current voting system to determine president. In my opinion the electoral college has benefits that you could have mentioned a little more. For example, it takes away from the useless third party voters. It also isolates determined candidates as now they must focus campaign in specific states. And in one way or another (even if we are discussing Trump), it gives the loud minority a chance.
ReplyDelete