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.
Bravo, Mike Spindell!
Yes, the unrepresentative, two-vote-per-state Senate should be reconfigured, as the EC is dropped.
I have no worries about the low-population states having less representation. Fewer people, fewer votes. What’s not to like?
Well, let’s ask our legal eagles. Are there grounds for limiting freedom of speech as we see going on everywhere?
What ordinance was violated. Is this not a violation of the constitution, and of several amendments? Does this not violate the prohibition of local law setting aside federal laws and the Constitution?
Are there cases on the ACLU agenda? Where are they now in the appellate process? Where do I send my five bucks?
Oh, are you devotees of the genital hymen?
Some people pay big money for those. Some lose them a hundred times. They are rich.
Hymee is reported to be a jewish name, blessed be their tribe. Are you playing games? Go troll elsewhere. Basta.
bettykath, there are no words for how atrocious those actions were. The one question I DO have is… if the following is true:
“As Former VFP President Mike Ferner said, “I bet a lot of the arresting officers tonight were also military veterans; a number of them didn’t look too happy with the job they were told to do.”
Why did they do it? We had quite a discussion here a few weeks ago about obeying illegal orders. I would have thought this would have been a time to have said not only NO, but HELL, NO.
Idealist: What is a Madrasah?
I am a member of the Hymen sect and am neither a muslim, christian or jew. We worship one thing. When it is gone we revere it. How it is lost matters. Protect it while ya got it.
Like I said: Freedom of speech. As long as it is innocuous. Be glad that the National Guard troops were not there. Of course the NG serves in Afghan today. Lost 3 from NC along with 16 others in same explosion.
A shame that the vets did not bring their weapons with them.
I mean we have a right to bear arms. Right?
I’m too upset by this to search for the correct thread.
http://october2011.org/blogs/kevin-zeese/12th-year-afghanistan-war-begins-arrests-vets-protesting-war
Jude,
Another advantage with multiple parties is that the two biggies don’t get to decide what is on the debate agenda.
Majority dictatorship? How long do they last.
Put two people in a room and get three opinions! Heard it before, well it still is true.
In a so-called majority, as long as there are swing voters and votes cast uncontrolled, then there is no monolith.
At least not in practice. Has there ever been a
democratic majority rule? I thought the fewer involved the longer the reign.
Until we use the Congress, its laws, and the system to control the corporatioos, instead of vice versa, all efforts will be useless. It is all controlled like the school ýou went to was controlled and it controlled you too.
Money talks, how often have we heard that. And it conceals its voice well. So what are we going to do about that. It changes its colors, RWB or green, the results are the same. Stupifaction and stupefication? Stupid. American proles? They are a market. That’s all.
Unfortuantely the money blocks are better coordinated than before. And they will always be because money buys smarts and what it needs to get what it needs. Just simple thoughts here.
And we are still completely disorganized sheep being harried by the corporate dogs. Baaaa! So appropriate.
So what is wrong with 50 per cent popular vote, if it does not start a civil war? A majority dictatorship is preferable to a corporate one.
The imperial presidency is an illusion needed to give the appearance that we are united, when our deeds show otherwise.
When you control the money and our debts yóu control it all. That and a few thousand other matters that money controls.
Freedom of speech. Sure, as long as it is ineffectual.
I agree the electoral college must go. How about also putting term limits on Senators and Reps as well?
That’s preferential voting, not proportional voting.
The problem with the electoral college is that it deletes the minority vote state by state. Voters in parties other than the dominate one, don’t bother b/c the dominate party gets all the electoral votes. It doesn’t have to be that way. If the electoral college votes were divvied up proportional to the vote in the state, more states would be in play b/c all voters would be in play. A handful of swing states would continue to have a close vote and the electoral votes would be split evenly, rather than a winner-take-all.
I’m not opposed to a constitutional amendment to do away with the electoral college, just saying there’s another way.
I disagree with myself above. Proportional voting isn’t a good idea for the presidential race but is for other races. It’s a separate discussion.
I think this idea could help third parties, as well. Those people who are too afraid to vote for a third party now could do so, then vote for the “lesser of two evils” in a runoff.
Parlianmentary, yeah it is more responsive to the people’s expressed opinions, but otherwise it ain’t much to celebrate.
And why complain about the religious faction over here. De-enfranchise´your evangelists first. And I’ll abstain from the ones here who want to help women to stay at home and be housewives. Let them think that they can take us back to the 30’s.
I think focusing on the EC is not the answer. Congress is, and how one is elected to the two chambers, and how it is dysfunctional. Of course, most collections of human are so.
Hynmee, go back to your madrasah. Hee hee.
Magginkat , that IS the fundimental question, isn’t it? Every time we have an election, this issue always surfaces, usually brought up by the losing party. It’s tossed around for a couple of weeks and then is put back in it’s political box until the next general election. One of these days, someone on a national level is going to shock the entire electorate and bring this up in the middle of a term. THEN maybe we’ll be able to bury this once and for all.
cadesertvoice, not everything is the result of slavery.
MikeS,
“Most of the continuing anti-democratic and anti-constitutional activities domestically in this country occur on a state and local level.”
Curremtöy reading Russ Baker’s book on the Bushes et al class, it would seem relevant to maintain that these folks are not concerned about any boundaries. They use them as needed, but are hindered by none, even up to and dominating the federal one.
I would propose a “Reign of Terror”, but then if we look at what it got France, one is discouraged from its execution.
Trolls continually, Gene.
Throughout the Constitution there is one example after another of means and methods to protect the minority from the oppression of the majority. This is true in the legislative bodies and in the functions of our government. The EC was (is) one of those protections. Even in the late 18th century, there was legitimate concern, particularly among small population and agricultural states, that large population centers, where wealth tends to accummulate (remembering that neither women nor blacks could vote), would dominate and dictate the outcomes of federal elections and voters’ interests in those smaller areas largely ignored. If elections are decided by the outcomes in NYC, Chicago, Los Angeles, Atlanta and Dallas, who speaks for Iowa or Idaho? Who would even listen to a candidate from a rural area of the midwest? As those folks lose their electoral relevance, they would also lose access to their government.
Beware the trend to dissolve or weaken the political party system. The replacement system, and there would have to be a replacement system to do the work of corralling votes and wooing voters, would be corporations. Then we would truly be electing the Senator from Koch Industries or the ACLU. Benito would be so proud to see his Facism implanted in the US.
Indio007,
“…I think a little more professional diversity is in order.”
Joe the plumber would be fine. At least he could connect the sewage line to Congress’ output.