Below is my column today in USA Today. We are now just a month away from the presidential election and our continued inexplicable use of the Electoral College. I have previously discussed steps that we can take to reform our political system. However, the starting point should be the elimination of the electoral college and the requirement that our presidents be elected by a direct and majority vote. As with other leading countries, we should allow for a runoff to guarantee that every president enters office with the support of over half of the voters.
Vladimir Putin had one in Russia. This week, Hugo Chavez had one in Venezuela. Last spring, Nicholas Sarkozy lost one in France.
In each case, the outcome was decided by the majority of voters in their country. Such direct democracy is a foreign concept in the USA, where we require neither direct voting nor a majority to lead our nation. The reason is an arcane institution: the Electoral College.
In the U.S., presidents are not elected by the people but by 538 “electors” who award blocks of votes on a state-by-state basis. The result is that presidents can be — and have been — elected with fewer votes than their opponents. Indeed, various presidents have taken office with less than 50% of the vote. The question is whether a president should be elected by a majority of voters of at least one free country before he can call himself the leader of the free world.
The Electoral College is a relic of a time when the Framers believed that average people could not be trusted with selecting a president, at least not entirely. This was consistent with a general view of the dangers of direct voting systems. Until 1913, U.S. senators were elected not by their constituents but by the state legislators. When we finally got rid of that provision with the 17th Amendment, we failed to change its sister provision in Article II on the indirect election of presidents.
Slavery’s legacy
Notably, while James Madison agreed that direct election of the president would be superior, there was one primary obstacle to pursuing this option in the Constitutional Convention: slavery. Madison noted that the North-South divide presented an obstacle of a “serious nature” to direct democracy. He concluded that the use of electors that gave each state a set number of votes “seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections.” Now slavery is gone, yet the Electoral College remains.
We have retained this dysfunctional institution even after the calamity of the 2000 election, in which a few “hanging chads” in Florida determined the outcome. Not only did the college effectively negate half of the votes in Florida by giving all the electoral votes to George W. Bush, but it also delivered the entire election to him despite his loss in the national popular vote. Direct elections lessen such controversies by counting the votes of all Americans equally and directly. Though such vote counting controversies could continue, the size of the nation usually guarantees that the popular vote is rarely in doubt. Even in that “close” election, Bush trailed by more than a half million votes.
Ignoring voters
The greatest irony of the Electoral College is that it does precisely the opposite of what the Framers intended: Rather than encouraging presidential candidates to take small states seriously, it results in turning most states into near total irrelevancies. With our two-party monopoly on power in the United States, candidates spend little time, if any, in states that are clearly going to go for the other party — or even for their own party. Thus, there is little reason for President Obama to go to Utah or for Mitt Romney to go to Vermont. The result is that elections are dominated by swing states while campaigns become dominated by the issues affecting those states.
Thus, while the majority of Americans support tougher immigration laws, both candidates this year are struggling to adopt new policies to capture swing states with large Latino populations. Whatever the merits of the immigration debate, the campaign looks as if it is for the United State of Florida as opposed to the country as a whole. The irony is palpable given the original desire of Madison to use the college to avoid the “mischiefs of faction.” He did not want presidents to be effectively captured by factional or insular interests. However, that is precisely what has occurred: The interests of the majority of country are subservient to the insular interests of key voting blocks in swing states.
The reason that the Electoral College is still with us is that it is a critical protection for the two-party monopoly on power in the USA. The Democrats and Republicans effectively keep presidential candidates of the opposing party out of their states — deterring the expenditure of time and money in organizing these states. Opposing candidates and parties face even greater obstacles because most voters view the result as irrelevant to the outcome of elections.
Undemocratic relic
Ultimately, the Electoral College should be rescinded as a fundamentally undemocratic institution. John Quincy Adams was elected by just 32% of the popular vote. He is among the 15 presidents who have taken office with less than 50% of the vote:
James Polk
Zachary Taylor
James Buchanan
Abraham Lincoln
Rutherford Hayes
James Garfield
Grover Cleveland (twice)
Benjamin Harrison
Woodrow Wilson (twice)
Harry Truman
John Kennedy
Richard Nixon
Bill Clinton (twice)
George W. Bush.
Some presidents like Bush were elected not only by less than a majority but also with fewer votes than his opponent. For the many Americans who are unhappy with this political system and want change, a key and obtainable reform is a constitutional amendment requiring the direct and majority election of presidents in either a general or, if necessary, a runoff election. A president represents all Americans, and he or she should be elected by the vote of citizens as Americans, as a whole.
It is time for the United States to embrace true democracy. It is time to kill the Electoral College.
Jonathan Turley, the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, is a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors.
You people, I was away for a while, so I’ll just spin on your comments. They are cool, even the dumb ones. Even the guy who says: “I am”. He is 100 percent right.
But before I do, let me run a familiar passage by you.
Fast forward if you dare. Re-read it every day is my advice.
Especially the part about dissolving political bonds and abusive government which have gone too far and for too long.
Some can say it by heart, but does that mean we use it for action? Is this the moment? Maybe it is.
================================================
“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
“Don’t just assume changing to a popular vote will make the system any better. Actually it may make it worse.” (Me)
I’m not trying to be a smarta*s by asking … How? I would be interested in how you think a direct popular vote might make the system worse.
Jaysus! What in the world is wrong with 1) getting rid of an anacronistic system like the EC and 2) electing the President with the popular vote? I would even go so far as to say do it the way it was origionally intended…highst number of votes becomes Prez and second highest number becomes Veep. We seem to be the only democracy on earth that has this idiocy of an EC with which to deal.
Troll much?
Once again I see some lame diction here on the part of the JT. The sentence reads: “However, the starting point should be that we eliminate the electoral college and the requirement that our presidents be elected by a direct and majority vote.” The segment after the word “and” must be taken to mean that the present system has a requirement that our presidents be elected by a direct and majority vote. The opposite is true. The author needed to end the sentence before the “and” and then say that after eliminating the Electoral College in a Constitutional Amendment, we must pass a provision in a Constitutional Amendment to require the election to be predicated on a direct and majority vote. I sense that these articles are written late at night on a computer, not reviewed by an editor of any sort, and sent on to Word Press. It happens often. Kinda like the Democrat vote: early and often.
Mike Spindell 1, October 9, 2012 at 9:43 am
“I’ve seen no evidence in countries where there are multiple parties that it moves legislation forward. It seems rather to bog things down.”
Rcampbell makes an interesting point. In other purported democracies multiple parties don’t seem to improve democratic standards much and in fact can be retrograde in their effect. It is true that these other countries all have parliamentary systems, where minority religious factions can wield influence beyond their numbers. Perhaps what needs to be considered is not a one size fits all solution, but the reality behind why most democratic countries aren’t really democratic. The reality is that wealth plays and inordinate role in dominating political systems. Great wealth seems to consistently trump all manner of laws and regulations. Most holders of great wealth, be they Corporations, families or individuals believe in a system of governance where they have unfettered benefits and the rest of the population is strictly controlled.
=============================================
It may be time to take some clues from slime mold, like engineers are doing.
Why didn’t you start this action right after an election instead of mentioning it just prior to said election and then doing nothing? The electoral college should have been dumped years ago. Now if we try to get rid of it we will have to fight those Kock brothers, Karl Rove and his PAC, etc. Is there any possibility that this can be done before the next election? I assume there is no way to change that except by a Constitutional amendment??
leave the EC as is. I love the idea that the candidates must go visit New Hampshire.
These are the rules. We know them and understand them. Don’t just assume changing to a popular vote will make the system any better. Actually it may make it worse.
Reblogged this on cadesertvoice and commented:
The Electoral College is slavery’s legacy…it’s time to end it.
http://current.com/groups/news-blog/93887732_al-gore-calls-for-popular-vote.htm I support it. My vote for president does not count in the solidly red state that I live in. Maybe that is why voter participation is so low here.
The purpose of the electoral college was two fold if I recall….. One, the slave states and possible packing…. And two, the ability to accurately get the vote counted before certification was required….. Today both of these should be obsolete….. But the major political parties could not care what’s correct…. Only putting the puppet in office……
rcampbell, I’m not talking about Baskin Robbins many choices. How about instead of just vanilla and chocolate, just some freakn’ strawberry for chrissake. Can I have some strawberry..maybe maple walnut once in awhile? Three or four choices, please, please, please. I’ll mow the lawn, dad.
Now that we’re talking politics and sodapop, I’d like to propose that the New York law against big sodapop simply be applied to political candidates. Campaigns can be only so big and no bigger. Use your money wisely. After all, it’s for the health of the public. ❗
Nick
John Huntsman is a Republican, so it Newt Gingrich. Do you see no difference, no choice between these variations from the same brand of soda? We’re talking about governing a country, not setting up a retail store. It isn’t about having 35 flavors to choose from. it’s all and only about getting legislation enacted and governance.
“I’ve seen no evidence in countries where there are multiple parties that it moves legislation forward. It seems rather to bog things down.”
Rcampbell makes an interesting point. In other purported democracies multiple parties don’t seem to improve democratic standards much and in fact can be retrograde in their effect. It is true that these other countries all have parliamentary systems, where minority religious factions can wield influence beyond their numbers. Perhaps what needs to be considered is not a one size fits all solution, but the reality behind why most democratic countries aren’t really democratic. The reality is that wealth plays and inordinate role in dominating political systems. Great wealth seems to consistently trump all manner of laws and regulations. Most holders of great wealth, be they Corporations, families or individuals believe in a system of governance where they have unfettered benefits and the rest of the population is strictly controlled.
” … eliminating the EC would certainly seem to relegate lower population states like Montana, Wyoming, the Dakotas (all usually leaning towards the Republicans) to irrelevance” (rcampbell cited and Kieth’s concerns … ” … my concern is that Washington would tend to focus its earmarks and funding attention on “bribing” big population centers where the votes are while rural areas would be left for dead.”)
I have heard that defense of the EC since I was in 8th grade and my question is … how would eliminating the EC relegate lower population states to irrelevance? Their votes would still count towards the election of a candidate. Or is this an argument based on the independent and sovereign States view (Republic -v- Democracy)?
Except for Maine and Nebraska, all of a state’s electoral votes are awarded to the presidential candidate who wins the popular vote in that state. Each state is allotted as many electoral votes as they have U.S. Senators and Representatives. This results in smaller states having more electoral votes proportionate to their populations, and larger states having less. Why should lower population states have more influence than their population demands? Their influence within the House is based on their population and they have no less influence in the Senate than any other state.
Yes, it could be argued that eliminating the EC would move us more in the direction of a Democracy than a Republic but that is not the argument that has been put forward here though I would certainly welcome it.
Also … open primaries should all be non-partisan but save that discussion for down the road.
There is much to do and this EC suggestion is just one step in the process.
The small population states benefit disproportionately from the EC. They will fight democracy tooth and nail to retain their sway.
“The Electoral College does precisely what it was designed to do. It gives more power to smaller states.”
From Bill H’s perspective this is good, from mine it has been disastrous. What has plagued the U.S. since the impeachment of Johnson after the Civil War, has been the power the Southern States wield over the rest of us. While demographically the populations of a few Southern States have grown, the mentality of their electoral process and plutocratic control has not. In tandem with other “small” states (Utah, Arizona, the Dakotas, Idaho, Kansas for starters) they have wangled an inordinate amount of Federal largesse, while consistently decrying spending. They are the “heartland” of religious fanaticism and of local policies favoring wealth over people. They also are quite insular in outlook and see themselves as “sovereignty’s”, rather than part of the whole.
While direct election by popular vote for President would be a great reform, it will do little to help unless we also look at the tandem flaw in our Constitution that came about for almost the same reasons. The fact that each state, no matter what its population and/or geographical size, has two votes in the Senate also adds immensely to our lack of a truly democratic system. In both of these flaws we provide inordinate power to states that of course use it in their own self interest. While we all understand how this country was formed historically, our entire system of being broken up into States has become dysfunctional and gives inordinate power to some.
Behind this whole premise of “States Rights” lies the falsehood that democracy is best practiced o a local level and that the Federal Government is more tyrannical. Unfortunately, we have seen that history shows the reverse.
Most of the continuing anti-democratic and anti-constitutional activities domestically in this country occur on a state and local level.
The constituency of the US isn’t the people, it’s the various body politics…. the several States. The people are an ancillary afterthought.
My idea is this, let’s have true equality before the law.
Elections by lottery.
It sure as hell can’t get any worse.
Nothing against lawyers but almost every politician is a lawyer.
I think a little more professional diversity is in order.
rcampbell, You’re absolutely correct..2 choices are all anyone could need. And, I think we should only have 2 choices in soda, Coke or Pepsi. There should be only 2 choices in pizza, cheese or pepperoni[actually little kids would be fine w/ that]. Certainly we only need 2 choices in cereal, Cheerios or Corn Flakes. Sports..hell yes. The Dodgers and Yankees. With just 2 teams it will be very interesting. And, as you so wisely state, Dem or Republican…status quo rocks!!