Electoral College: What It Is, Why It's Unfair
With today being Constitution Day (225 years
ago today, September 17, 1787, is when the Constitutional Convention signed the
final document), I thought my first post on Co-Create UMBC might commemorate this day by examining one particularly relevant component of the Constitution—the Electoral College—and its influence on presidential campaigns.
Background
On Election Day, you will vote for Electors who will convene weeks later to formally elect the President and Vice President. In the Electoral College, each state has a number of votes equal to the number of its Representatives (determined by population) plus Senators (two per state, regardless of population). Because Maryland currently has eight Representatives and two Senators, it will cast 10 electoral votes in the 2012 Presidential Election. The Electoral College originated in a compromise among states with higher populations and lower populations.
The Electoral College Today
In 1787, the Electoral College, though it tipped
the scales toward states with small populations even then, found a place in the
Constitution out of political convenience. In today’s landscape, however, the system has evolved into an institution that routinely disempowers millions of Americans every four years. How?
Well, we can first start with the representation issue. By counting Senators when determining the number of electors each state receives, we privilege less populous states in the Electoral College. For example, Wyoming’s small population and three electoral votes means that one of the state’s electoral votes represents 56,363 citizens, while Maryland’s large population and ten electoral votes results in one of its electoral votes representing 577,355 of its citizens. While many of us assume that in America our votes count equally, the reality is that they do not when we elect Presidents and Vice Presidents.
Another problematic feature of the Electoral College emerged only a few decades after the institution’s creation. In the early nineteenth century, many states looked for ways to heighten their influence in presidential politics. States began implementing “winner-take-all” models as one method, in which states package their electoral votes together and award them to the candidate winning a plurality of each state’s popular vote. Over the years the winner-take-all rule has become the default method of awarding electoral votes; only Maine and Nebraska do not use the winner-take-all system. The rule rewards presidential candidates who camp out in competitive states that award large numbers of electoral votes. In 2012, Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Colorado have seen
presidential candidates spend significant time and resources in their states based on their “swing state” status—their politically moderate populations and large blocs of electoral votes. Conversely, less populated states that tend to vote predictably for the same party election after election—like Wyoming (which reliably votes Republican) and Vermont (reliably Democratic)—attract little to no attention from modern campaigns and are often shut out of the national political dialogue.
With the inherently unequal distribution of political power in the Electoral College and the winner-take-all system working in tandem, we now have a presidential voting process that is anachronistic, undemocratic, and, in many states, difficult to experience. Many individuals and organizations have spawned efforts to amend the Constitution in an effort to dispose of the Electoral College. One contemporary movement is called the National Popular
Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC), an initiative inviting state commitments to revise current rules governing how they apportion their electoral votes to ensure that states select the winner of the national popular vote. The agreement will only take effect when the compact enlists the required number of states to represent the majority of electors. (Currently, eight states and the District of Columbia have joined the NPVIC, with Maryland being the first state to join in 2007.)
Conclusion
I think the most important thing for us to remember is that the Constitution is not a static document. While making the process difficult, our founders did entrust us with the ability to amend the Constitution as necessary. Regardless of political affiliation, we all own a piece of that Constitution and its contents (including the Electoral College). On this Constitution Day, I think it's worth thinking about what kind of system for electing Presidents we want to have.
How do you feel about the Electoral College? If you don’t like it, how would you amend it?
Note: You can read the original text of the Constitution here, and the 27 amendments adopted since that day in 1787 here and here. David has written a couple posts in the past to celebrate this holiday. In 2010,David asserted that the Constitution represented the ideals of co-creation and restraint. In 2009, David’s Constitution Day post proposed that U.S. Senators be apportioned among the states at least partly based on population(not two per state).
--Craig Berger
Co-Create UMBC is a blog for and about UMBC, written by David Hoffman and Craig Berger from the Office of Student Life. Join the Co-Create UMBC group on MyUMBC. Like Co-Create UMBC on Facebook. And follow David and Craig on Twitter.
Posted: September 17, 2012, 9:19 AM