The Electoral College.

 

One of the enduring features of the American republic, the Electoral College has in recent years come under intense criticism over a perceived partisan bias. Some have gone so far as to say the institution oppresses the voice of minorities. There are a variety of valid and invalid arguments both for and against it, and I will attempt to address the most legitimate of them here.

 

Only five times in American history has the electoral vote contradicted the popular vote: 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016. Given this, one might reasonably ask what the point of the institution is if it rarely changes the election result, and when it does, it does so against the popular majority.

 

The first reason is that it helps deliver a clear mandate for the presidency. Often, the winner leads by only one or two percent of the popular vote, and many times fails to achieve a simple majority of 50.1% of the vote due to third parties. The electoral college typically magnifies the margin of victory in favor of the winner of the popular vote, which helps to strengthen the mandate to govern. A president who won only 49% of the vote technically did not achieve the support of the American people, and is inherently less credible. An electoral victory of 307 points compared with an opposition’s 233 appears far more concrete.

 

Of much greater significance than the first reason is the second: a popular vote on a national scale is simply begging for voter fraud. It opens the door for corrupt politicians in Democratic or Republican strongholds to tamper with results and skew them by hundreds of thousands of votes in just a single state. In elections where more than 180 million Americans vote, such numbers would be hard to detect, and even harder to fix in a recount.

 

One of the numerous possibilities here is illegal immigrants casting ballots in states like California, that openly advocate for giving healthcare, driver’s licenses, and even voting rights to undocumented migrants. I personally attempted to register to vote online in California while writing this article, and I can confirm that one does not need voter ID, only a driver’s license or a social security card. However, given that California allows illegal immigrants to acquire driver’s licenses without proof of citizenship, and that more than seven million illegals have fake social security cards, all one needs to do is simply falsely answer the question of citizenship in order to vote as an illegal.

 

The punishments of lying naturally discourage many illegals from voting, but in a state that actively impedes ICE, a demographic known to vote for the majority party of the state is unlikely to encounter much trouble, especially if they have a fake social security card to back them up. I didn’t even have to list a precise address in order to register. If someone is concerned that the Electoral College reduces the power of the citizen’s vote, then they should be even more concerned about the risk of illegitimate voting which would be immeasurably more difficult to detect under a nation-wide popular vote.

 

A third defense of the Electoral College is actually the diversity of the United States. As far as democratic countries go, the U.S. is second only to Canada in landmass and India in population. There is no country on Earth with the racial, ethnic, religious, and cultural diversity of the United States. Our economy and geography rivals any in terms of variation. In order for such a distinctive and large body to co-exist under the same political hierarchy, each region must have its own voice. The importance of winning electoral votes means that largely neglected areas have the chance to enter the spotlight. Because winning states like Ohio is so critical to a successful election, candidates must appeal to voters in Middle America. In a pure popular vote, the only areas that would matter are the densely populated urban centers, and everyone living between the two coasts would be ignored. The plight of Rust Belt workers has transformed blue states purple and even red; immigration has shifted the Southwest from ruby red to a shade of indigo. In the United States there are nearly 340 cities with a population greater than 100,000. In an election for popular votes, no town with less than 50,000 residents would ever receive so much as a visit from an aspiring presidential candidate. That includes our own State College. Without the electoral point system, nobody would bother with the rural communities that often face some of the toughest socio-economic problems in the country. Such a system openly encourages hostility towards an unresponsive federal government, and quite literally split our country down the middle.

 

Finally, the misconception that a citizen’s vote is meaningless lacks real substance. Granted, in decades past the electors could disregard the vote of the state’s people. However, virtually every state requires its electors to vote as the people of their state vote. The people still determine the president, but through the medium of regional representation. The United States is not a democracy, it is a republic, as is virtually every “democracy” in the world. In a democracy, citizens would vote for every law. Instead, we elect leaders to represent our interests. 

 

Our Electoral College is in fact one of the most democratic systems in existence. Consider India, the only “democracy” larger than our own. The people there do not even vote for the Prime Minister; instead, they vote for parties, and a coalition then nominates the Prime Minister. But what about England? Surely England must have a popular vote. Wrong! Again, the people vote for local representatives, and the majority party leader is then appointed by the King/Queen. Germany? The Bundestag casts a secret ballot!

 

It would appear that the United States is infinitely more responsive to the popular voice than most other “democracies.” People vote for a person here; overseas, people vote for a party and then that party chooses a person to their liking. That isn’t even touching the bureaucratic monstrosity that is the European Union. If the United States crushes the voice of the people with the Electoral College, then Europe, Canada, and India are downright authoritarian.

 

At the end of the day, no matter what system we use, somebody’s voice will be disproportionately stronger at the expense of another. Most agree that whatever system gives the greatest representation to the greatest number of people is preferable. Propaganda narratives and online tantrums will not help people: research, discussion, and intelligent political action can.

 

Full disclosure in the interest of transparency: my personal belief is that despite some of the flaws listed above, the Electoral College is overall a good system, albeit one that could perhaps use a bit of refinement. I set about preparing this blog not with the intention of convincing anyone of that belief, but merely to share the facts which are too often obscured which I believe are essential to anyone making an informed opinion on the issue, and to acknowledge the validity in both arguments in order to foster bipartisan understanding. I would love to discuss the matter in greater detail with anyone who has a response to this piece.