Electoral College System Flunks the Fairness Test

As of Sunday, October 14, 2012

By David Page

Special to The Pilot

The United States has come a long way in the past 100 years in making elections more democratic and fair.

Reapportionment, the Voting Rights Act, suffrage for women, blacks and 18-year-olds, and easier registration are good examples of reforms that have encouraged people to feel that elections are fair and that their vote counts.

In presidential elections, however, we have not moved very far toward fairness. Our forefathers were concerned about the rights of those states - especially small states and Southern states - not deciding elections by popular vote. Thus, the requirement for two senators per state, the three-fifths provision, and the election of presidents and vice presidents by an awkward system of choosing electors and having them choose the president.

This system, which we call the Electoral College, is in my opinion unfitting and unfair for the election of presidents in the 21st century.

Consider the following example in which each state gets one elector for each 10,000 people, plus two for its senators. In state A, population 200,000, "Bill" receives 20,000 popular votes. In state B, population 250,000, he receives 70,000 popular votes. His total popular votes are 90,000, with 27 electoral votes (25 plus 2).

"Jane" receives 50,000 popular votes in state A (200,000 population) and 60,000 in state B (250,000). Her total popular votes are 110,000, but her electoral votes only total 22 (20 plus 2). "Bill" is our new president. Fair?

Improbable? Check the presidential elections of 1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000. Little effect? The election of 1876 probably ended the civil rights movement for blacks in the 19th century. The election of 2000 helped us go to war in Iraq.

Here is an example of unfairness that occurs in every presidential election:

Wyoming (pop. 493,782) has three electoral votes, with the population per electoral vote 164,594. North Carolina (pop. 8,001,024) has 15 electoral votes, with the population per electoral vote 533,401. A vote in Wyoming has at least three times the value of a vote in North Carolina.

This system may have been proper and necessary when the Constitution was up for approval by the states, but not today. The political rights of small states are well-protected by having two senators for each state, regardless of population. This provision cannot be amended.

How can we move the process toward greater fairness? We could reform the system by adopting a popular vote amendment. This is time-consuming and difficult to get Congress to move on. One or the other party always believes that it has the Electoral College advantage. The last attempt in the late '60s and early '70s never got out of Congress.

Another possible reform is the interstate agreement in which each state "holds" its electoral votes until all states have completed the popular vote. Then the state casts its electoral votes for the national winner Eight states have adopted this, but it has stalled and seems unlikely to go further. (A state might have to vote against the preference of its own people.)

The reform that I advocate is allocating each electoral vote by the outcome of the popular vote in the congressional district. A method for allocating the electoral votes for the two senators would be decided by the state legislature (which should be entertaining).

This is a bottom-up reform that would diminish the mathematical probability of electing someone president who had not won the popular vote. But it would not eliminate the possibility.

If this reform is adopted, states need not wait for other states to act and a popular vote amendment could continue without interference. The so-called red states and blue states should get more attention from the candidates. Maine and Nebraska have already adopted this reform.

If you agree, call, write or contact your state representative and state senator and let them know how you feel. A bottom-up reform has to start with the voter - at the bottom. No political party is likely to lead a movement for election reform. But you and I can.

David Page lives in Southern Pines.

More like this story

The_AnonymusProfit 7 months, 1 week ago

Though it has not happened in a long time, "electors" can switch their votes.

Toyboy52 7 months, 1 week ago

Mr. Page:

I want to disagree with you .But, I assume that you are the same Mr. Page who taught me history in high School and had the patience and good manners not to laugh at me when I tried to run cross country. You were my coach. Your inspiration was one reason why I chose to major I'n history at UNC Therefore, I will refrain from disagreement. I will remember this article as I go to Raleigh this December and vote as the elector for the 2nd Congressional District (assuming Romney carries NC)

Bob Levy

Btw AnonProfit: NC law requires me to vote for our nominee.

toto 7 months, 1 week ago

There have been 22,453 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 17 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party. 1796 remains the only instance when the elector might have thought, at the time he voted, that his vote might affect the national outcome. Since 1796, the Electoral College has had the form, but not the substance, of the deliberative body envisioned by the Founders. The electors now are dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.

**If a Democratic presidential candidate receives the most votes, the state's dedicated Democratic party activists who have been chosen as its slate of electors become the Electoral College voting bloc. If a Republican presidential candidate receives the most votes, the state's dedicated Republican party activists who have been chosen as its slate of electors become the Electoral College voting bloc. The winner of the presidential election is the candidate who collects 270 votes from Electoral College voters from among the winning party's dedicated activists.

** The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors).

toto 7 months, 1 week ago

Dividing more states’ electoral votes by congressional district winners would magnify the worst features of the Electoral College system.

***If the district approach were used nationally, it would be less fair and less accurately reflect the will of the people than the current system. In 2004, Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote, but 59% of the districts. Although Bush lost the national popular vote in 2000, he won 55% of the country's congressional districts.

***The district approach would not provide incentive for presidential candidates to campaign in a particular state or focus the candidates' attention to issues of concern to the state. With the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all laws (whether applied to either districts or states), candidates have no reason to campaign in districts or states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. In North Carolina, for example, there are only 2 districts (the 13th with a 5% spread and the 2nd with an 8% spread) where the presidential race is competitive. In California, the presidential race has been competitive in only 3 of the state's 53 districts. Nationwide, there have been only 55 "battleground" districts that were competitive in presidential elections. With the present deplorable 48 state-level winner-take-all system, 80% of the states (including California and Texas) are ignored in presidential elections; however, 88% of the nation's congressional districts would be ignored if a district-level winner-take-all system were used nationally.

***Awarding electoral votes by congressional district could result in third party candidates winning electoral votes that would deny either major party candidate the necessary majority vote of electors and throw the process into Congress to decide.

***Because there are generally more close votes on district levels than states as whole, district elections increase the opportunity for error. The larger the voting base, the less opportunity there is for an especially close vote.

***Also, a second-place candidate could still win the White House without winning the national popular vote.

A national popular vote is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states and DC becomes President.

toto 7 months, 1 week ago

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

***Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.

***When the bill is enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes– enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country.

***The presidential election system that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers but, instead, is the product of decades of evolutionary change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

***The bill uses the power given to each state in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

***In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed, 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in recent closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

***The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states, and been enacted by 9 jurisdictions possessing 132 electoral votes - 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

NationalPopularVote
Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc

toto 7 months, 1 week ago

Opponents remain stuck on a misconception that the plan would “force” states to give their electoral votes to a candidate that may not have won their state, but this misses the point entirely. The National Popular Vote plan changes the Electoral College from an obstruction of the popular will to a ratifier in that it would always elect the candidate who has won the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Rather than states throwing their votes away, the actual voters themselves are empowered, as each and every one of us would have an equal vote for president – something we are sorely lacking under the Electoral College. http://www.fairvote.org/connecticut-house-passes-npv/

***In state polls of voters each with a second question that specifically emphasized that their state's electoral votes would be awarded to the winner of the national popular vote in all 50 states, not necessarily their state's winner, there was only a 4-8% decrease of support.

***Question 1: "How do you think we should elect the President: Should it be the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states, or the current Electoral College system?"

***Question 2: "Do you think it more important that a state's electoral votes be cast for the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in that state, or is it more important to guarantee that the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states becomes president?"

***Support for a National Popular Vote

***South Dakota -- 75% for Question 1, 67% for Question 2. see http://tinyurl.com/3jdkx7x

***Connecticut -- 74% for Question 1, 68% for Question 2. see http://tinyurl.com/3nv8djt

***Utah -- 70% for Question 1, 66% for Question 2. see http://tinyurl.com/3vrfxyh

toto 7 months, 1 week ago

A survey of North Carolina voters showed 74% overall support for a national popular vote for President.

***Support was 75% among liberal Democrats (representing 13% of respondents), 78% among moderate Democrats (representing 24% of respondents), 76% among conservative Democrats (representing 11% of respondents), 89% among liberal Republicans (representing 3% of respondents), 62% among moderate Republicans (representing 16% of respondents), 70% among conservative Republicans representing 21% of respondents), and 80% among independents (representing 12% of respondents).

***Support was 75% among respondents living in Democratic state House of Representative districts (representing 59% of respondents) and 72% among respondents living in Republican state House of Representative districts (representing 41% of respondents)

***By age, support was 69% among 18-29 year olds, 71% among 30-45 year olds, 77% among 46-65 year olds, and 72% for those older than 65.

***By gender, support was 81% among women and 65% among men.

***NationalPopularVote