Final 2016 Electoral College Map

“A lady asked Dr. Franklin, ‘Well, Doctor, what have we got a republic or a monarchy?’— ‘A republic,’ replied the Doctor, ‘If you can keep it.”

Benjamin Franklin

President Donald Trump recently stated that he would like to see the Electoral College replaced with a direct election of the president by a popular vote. The Electoral College is one of the most misunderstood elements of our constitutional system and it often falls under criticism by members of both political parties. Abolishing the Electoral College and replacing it with a direct national vote would be a colossus disaster and undermine our republican form of government.   

The debate is not new to American politics—whether or not the Electoral College should be replaced by a direct national popular vote for president—but the question, and the resolution, goes deeper than just elections, politics, and representation. It goes directly into the heart of our constitutional Republic. The Electoral College is fundamental to our constitutional system of limited government, federalism, equal representation, and separation of powers. 

Advocates of the direct national popular vote believe the Electoral College is a relic. In addition, they argue that the current system reflects voter’s decision on a state-by-state level and not on a national level. The conclusion: A direct national popular vote would be more democratic, recognize the nationwide presidential preference, and truly carry out the dream of equal representation, the famous one man-one vote concept. To many voters this probably sounds like a good idea, but, this is just another attempt to break down and eliminate our constitutional Republic.

Before making a constitutional defense of the Electoral College, it is necessary to explain what it is, because the College is one of the most misunderstood concepts in American government. The Electoral College is defined in Article II, Section I of the Constitution, which was later amended under Amendment XII. The Electoral College is a body of electors that are chosen in each state when citizens cast their ballot for a presidential candidate. 

When a presidential vote takes place every four years, citizens are actually voting for electors, rather than the specific candidate. For example, a vote for Donald J. Trump in 2016 would represent a vote for a Republican elector and vice-versa.  The winner of the plurality of votes in the November then goes on to win that particular state’s slate of electors.  In December, electoral ballots are cast in state capitals and the process is completed in January, of the New Year, when the ballots are counted before a joint session of Congress. 

The Electoral College was created by a compromise during the great debates that resulted in the written Constitution of 1787; in fact, the Founder’s rejected a measure calling for the direct election of the president. The simple argument for keeping the Electoral College is the fact that it works. More importantly we are a nation of “United States.” It is important to remember that the individual states created the Constitution and not the other way around. In addition, through federalism, the Constitution gives states sovereign power through the 10th Amendment, and the powers of the national government are limited by Article I, Section VIII, which lists the enumerated powers of Congress. In Federalist # 45 James Madison wrote: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.” In other words the Electoral College preserves federalism.

Politically speaking the Electoral College offers equal representation. A direct popular vote would force candidates and elections to be determined by the large metropolitan cities, while the current system, allows voters in smaller states to have an equal voice. In addition, a direct popular vote would force presidential candidates and political parties to target their platforms to the wishes of the major urban centers. This system would be great for Boston, San Francisco, or New York City, but not good for rural, small town America. “Voters in southern, Midwestern, and western states—derided as ‘flyover’ country—tend to value family, religion, individual liberty, property rights, and gun rights. Washington elites abhor these values, and they hate that middle and rural America hold any political power whatsoever,” wrote former presidential candidate and Representative Ron Paul. 

The United States Senate is another example. Part of the compromise in framing the Constitution was balancing the interests of large and small states. The Congress reflects that compromise with the House of Representatives based on population and the Senate has equal population. Larger states have greater representation in the House, while every state has equal representation in the Senate. Smaller states are protected in the Senate with equal representation. As George F. Will argues:

Do critics want to abolish the Senate as well? Delaware, the least populous state in 1789, was understandably the first to ratify the Constitution with its equal representation of states in the Senate: Virginia, the most populous, had eleven times more voters. Today Wyoming’s Senators’ votes can cancel those of California’s Senators, who represent sixty-nine times more people. If that offends you, so does America’s constitutional federalism. The electoral-vote system, like the Constitution it serves, was not devised by, and should not be revised by simpleminded majoritarians.

The Electoral College protects from political factions, works to prevent voter fraud, and provides a solid reason for consensus building in presidential campaigns. As an example, in 2016, President Trump was able to build a coalition that consisted of not only Republicans, but also independents and many blue-collar Democrats. This coalition was an instrumental factor in President Trump winning the election. Many examples could be examined throughout our history, but the point is that the Electoral College forces candidates and political parties to build coalitions. 

This brief essay can only mention the major arguments surrounding the importance of the Electoral College, but a strong recommendation will be made for concerned citizens to read Securing Democracy: Why We Have an Electoral College, edited by Gary L. Gregg II. Tara Ross has also written two excellent books on the Electoral College, Enlightened Democracy: The Case for the Electoral College and The Indispensable Electoral College: How the Founders’ Plan Saves Our Country from Mob Rule.

The term and concept of Democracy is being preached in both domestic and foreign policy circles, but we must remind ourselves that our system is a constitutional Republic and not a democracy. As John Samples, director of the Center for Representative Government at the CATO Institute, wrote: “If the Founders had wished to create a pure democracy, they would have done so. Those who now wish to do away with the Electoral College are welcome to amend the Constitution, but if they succeed, they will be taking America further away from its roots as a constitutional republic.”

3 comments
  1. Connecticut has voted to opt out of the U.S. Constitution that mandates the Electoral College. Didn’t such an act used to be called “session?”

    1. The Founders created the Electoral College, but 48 states eventually enacted state winner-take-all laws.

      Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1
      “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”
      The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.”

      Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation’s first presidential election.

      In 1789, in the nation’s first election, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors by appointment by the legislature or by the governor and his cabinet, the people had no vote for President in most states, and in states where there was a popular vote, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.

      The current winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It is not mentioned in the Federalist Papers. It was not the Founders’ choice. It was used by only three states in 1789, and all three of them repealed it by 1800. It is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method. The winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes became dominant only in the 1880s after the states adopted it, one-by-one, in order to maximize the power of the party in power in each state. . The Founders had been dead for decades

      The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state’s electoral votes.

      States have the responsibility and constitutional power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond. Now, 38 states, of all sizes, and their voters, because they vote predictably, are politically irrelevant in presidential elections.

      All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes among all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

  2. Being a constitutional republic does not mean we should not and cannot guarantee the election of the presidential candidate with the most popular votes. The candidate with the most votes wins in every other election in the country.

    Guaranteeing the election of the presidential candidate with the most popular votes and the majority of Electoral College votes (as the National Popular Vote bill would) would not make us a pure democracy.

    Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on all policy initiatives directly.

    Popular election of the chief executive does not determine whether a government is a republic or democracy.

    The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes used by 2 states, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers. It is the product of decades of change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by states of winner-take-all or district winner laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

    The Constitution does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for how to award a state’s electoral votes

    The National Popular Vote bill is 61% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency in 2020 to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

    The bill retains the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections, and uses the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes. It ensures that every voter is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.

    Every voter, everywhere, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would matter in the state counts and national count.

Comments are closed.

Get CT In Your Inbox!

Don't miss a single update.

You May Also Like

Wearing a U.S. Flag T-Shirt is Incendiary?

At Live Oak High School in Morgan Hill, CA on Cinco de…

90 Members of Congress State Support of State Laws Defunding Planned Parenthood

U.S. Senators Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Congressman Steve King (R-Iowa) joined U.S. Senator Roger Wicker is submitting an amicus brief written by attorneys asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case of Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast v. Gee.

Grassley Will Not Delay Hearing With Ford and Kavanaugh

Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley said he will not delay Thursday’s hearing with Brett Kavanaugh and his accuser Christine Blasey Ford.

Bush Has Great Reflexes

Today President Bush while at a press conference in Iraq had two…