Has America got the Electoral College right? -Deseret News

Every four years, Americans practice a strange math exercise.

No other country still uses a system like the electoral college to select a national executive through indirect voting.

It was enshrined in the Constitution as a compromise between the election of the president by Congress and a popular vote—unheard of in 1788.

Today, its practical effects depend on the allocation of electoral votes reflecting the size of each state's congressional delegation, thereby necessarily reducing the impact of large population centers. That's intentional, but the country has grown and developed over the past two centuries, expanding the right to vote to most adult citizens.

Is the Electoral College still an essential measure to protect small states and pluralism? Or an anachronism that makes America less democratic?

Protect the few

The Electoral College is a triumph of federalism, which has ensured clear mandates and peaceful transfers of power for two centuries. As a buffer between the people and the presidency, it counteracts demagoguery, cronyism and regional political machines, strengthens coalitions and protects our pluralistic society from the tyranny of the majority. It requires candidates to be accountable to both the many and the few.

In a referendum, cities like Los Angeles, New York and Chicago would dominate elections and reshape politics to their advantage. Dividing the vote protects smaller states and rural areas from this fate. The rise of swing states like Arizona, Nevada and Pennsylvania may be controversial, but it is not unhealthy.

“Battleground states are not perfect microcosms of America,” says Audrey Perry Martin, an election law expert and fellow at the Federalist Society, “but they are much closer together than giant population centers.”

No single region has enough votes to secure the presidency. Therefore, candidates must build diverse geographic coalitions that can strengthen minority voting blocs. Workers were instrumental in saving Michigan in 2016. Latter-day Saint women helped decide Arizona in 2020. This year, Georgia will likely rely on Black voters, who make up just 30% of the population.

“By encouraging candidates to build broad coalitions, the Electoral College helps ensure that the interests of minority groups are taken into account,” Martin says.

One problem that prevents this system is runoff voting. If a referendum is too close to being held or no candidate achieves a 50 percent majority, additional rounds of voting can put some democracies in a precarious position. But here, candidates can receive clear mandates even if third parties split the popular vote, as was the case in 1992. Only once in U.S. history has no candidate reached the threshold of 270 electoral votes required to win.

After all, the Electoral College is far more balanced than it appears, even if it has flaws in its design or dark influences on its origins. For example, while theoretically favoring smaller states, the spread of the winner-take-all accounting method means that large states like Texas or Florida can achieve outsized electoral advantages with small changes in the popular vote. They do not run the risk of being forgotten if small states make their voices heard.

One person, one voice

Many Americans are dissatisfied with the Electoral College, but this is nothing new. In the 1960s, civil rights activists saw it as a tool to maintain the old political order they were fighting. In 1970, it took a filibuster by Southern senators to kill a largely bipartisan constitutional amendment that would have initiated a popular vote after an uncomfortably close result in the 1968 election. In 2000 and 2016, this outdated process produced presidents who won despite losing the popular vote. No wonder a 2023 Pew poll found 65% support direct voting.

The Electoral College answered a question that is thankfully outdated today: How should the enslaved population in the South be represented? As founding father James Madison put it, “The replacement of electors eliminated this problem and seemed, on the whole, to have the least objection.” Along with the unfortunate three-fifths compromise that increased that region's representation in Congress, it gave theirs voters in presidential elections carry far more weight. Today it has a similar effect for all rural states.

In 1790, 95% of Americans lived in rural areas. Today, 80% live in cities, especially in coastal states. One effect is that a vote in sparsely populated Wyoming is worth about four times more than a vote in California.

From another perspective, the math gets even worse. According to Stanford sociology professor Doug McAdams, margins of victory in all but six battleground states in the 2012 presidential election made four out of five American voters irrelevant – on both sides of the ballot. Sometimes decisive voices come from only a few districts, which can introduce fringe opinions and extreme positions into the national discourse.

Imagine a baseball game, writes Washington Post columnist EJ Dionne Jr., in which a team wins not by scoring the most runs but by winning the most innings. The absurdity not only fuels those who question the validity of elections, but also discourages participation. After all, what's the point of voting if most Americans agree but you still lose?

“Although our founders believed we needed a brake on 'mob rule,'” writes Dan Glickman, former U.S. Secretary of Agriculture under President Bill Clinton, the Electoral College is “incompatible with our current national credo that every vote counts.” .”

This story appears in the November 2024 issue of Deseret Magazine. Learn more about subscribing.