electoral college

The Electoral College: From Relevant to Outdated

The Electoral College has been a contentious issue since the ratification of the United States Constitution in 1788. While seemingly innocuous to many Americans, the Electoral College system, which has served the country for over two centuries, has been an effective exercise but not without its problems.

The first Electoral College framework came about during the days of the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The Convention delegates at the time were seeking ways to elect the president; however, most were in disagreement. The Committee of Eleven on Postponed Matters was called upon to try and solve the disagreement. A compromise was reached amongst delegates, and the proposed Electoral College system was born (“History and Intent”).

 The early framework of the Electoral College was archaic in structure, simplistic, yet it was able to solve three overarching concerns. First, it created a clear separation between the state and federal branches of government.  Second, it balanced the power structure to prevent the larger populated states from influencing the election. Third, it provided for “citizen input” on how the president is chosen (“History and Intent” par. 2). The early iterations of the Electoral College provided for a plurality election in which each state-chosen elector was granted two votes. The candidate with the most votes became president, the candidate with the second most votes became vice-president.

 With the Electoral College established in Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, the framers did not envision the framework having many faults or foresee any problems. That came to bear in the election of 1800 when two candidates of opposing parties, Jefferson and Burr, received an equal amount of electoral votes. The tied election resulted in the House of Representatives having to vote “thirty-six times before Jefferson received the majority of votes” for the presidency (“History and Intent” par. 3). The subsequent Twelfth and Twenty-Third Amendments clarified and addressed the glaring problems from the first framework of the Electoral College process, separating the votes for president and vice-president within the college, giving us the framework we are familiar with today.

The contemporary framework of the Electoral College utilizes a “winner-take-all” system of popular elections coupled with an absolute majority system within the Electoral College. As eligible voters go to the polls on Election Day, each state records the vote totals for each registered candidate. After tabulation is complete, the Secretary of State for each state certifies the vote totals no less than six days before the Electoral College votes. This date is called the “Safe Harbor” deadline. The state’s governor is then responsible for completing the Certificates of Ascertainment, copies of which must be sent to the U.S. Archivist and Secretary of State no later than the date of the Electoral College vote. The Secretary of State prepares the Certificates of Vote for which the Electoral College will sign. The candidate with the most votes, a simple majority, wins the state’s total electors, which meet on the first Monday after the Second Wednesday in December to cast their votes for President and Vice-President. Once all signatures have been attained on the Certificates of Vote and Ascertainment, the signed certificates are delivered no later than the fourth Wednesday in December to the President of the Senate, the Archivist, the Secretaries of States, and finally the District Court Judge. The final step happens on January 6 when the Vice President, in their capacity as President of the Senate, opens the envelopes before a joint session of Congress to tally and declare a winner.

Impassioned debate rings loudly on both sides of whether the Electoral College is relevant today. In the presented debate, Kate Shaw and Jamelle Bouie make a strong case against keeping the Electoral College. There is a high possibility that the Electoral College winner will be the candidate without a majority of the popular vote. This “malfunction,” as it is called, has happened several times throughout the history of the Electoral College, the most recent being in 2016. The debaters also point out that the Electoral College system conflicts with a more inclusive democracy, such as the 15th and 19th Amendments. The Electoral College also contributes to a system that exacerbates polarization and divisions within America. The “winner-take-all” scheme has developed a system where only “battleground” states and their respective issues matter to the candidates.

On the other side of the debate, Tara Ross and Bradley Smith make a solid case for keeping the Electoral College.  First, they hold that a winner of the Electoral College not winning the popular vote is inherent in many other democracies throughout the world.  The effect of that happening to America does not necessarily mean the system itself is malfunctioning.  There are also practical benefits of the Electoral College, such as the system itself being a “bulwark against voter fraud.” A significant anecdote set in the civil rights era illustrated how activists felt that the Electoral College was a contributor to keeping extremist parties that would be damaging to their interests away from being elected. Finally, the Electoral College serves to keep relevant parts of the population engaged that would typically “find themselves irrelevant if the College did not exist.”

After evaluating the relevant evidence, the Electoral College, while useful at the development stages of our country, has outlived its usefulness. A new paradigm deserves to be explored: A direct popular vote that would better serve the United States people. The U.S. Supreme Court has firmly established the principle of  “one person, one vote” within the American democracy. There are also benefits to a popular vote. Today, we think of several states as “blue or red” states because of the overwhelming number of either Democrats or Republicans within their borders. In a popular vote scheme, voters in those states who might traditionally find themselves on the opposite side of a widespread issue will now have a voice. Think of the Republicans in California or the Democrats in Alabama as an example. Also, having a popular vote puts pressure on state governments to make it easier for their inhabitants to vote. A state with more restrictive voting laws would hurt its constituents with potential national consequences.

The Electoral College has served the United States well for over two hundred years; it is hard to think that such a well-established system was ever in conflict with the nation’s democratic principles. The framework established by the founders and through subsequent Amendments still holds to our democratic principles of popular sovereignty and federalism. However, a polarized, ever-changing electoral landscape merits a fresh take on how we elect our president and vice-president, especially when “malfunctions” are at risk for manifesting more often. So the question is: If the Electoral College outcome is at odds with the will of the people, can our president honestly claim he has “the consent of the governed?”

Works Cited

All Materials and Videos presented in the discussion forum for this topic.

“Electoral Fast Facts”

“Key December Dates for the Electoral College”

“Scholarly Articles on the Electoral College: History and Definition”

“PowerPoint – The Elector College”

“45 Presidents of the United States of America”