Electoral College

A common misconception among American is that when they vote they elect the President. The truth is not nearly this simple. What in fact happens when a person votes is that there vote goes for an Elector. This Elector (who is selected by the respective state in which a vote is cast) casts ballots for two individuals, the President and the Vice-President. Each state has the same number of electors as there are Senate and House of Representative members for that State. When the voting has stopped the candidate who receives the majority of the Electoral votes for a state receives all the electoral votes for that state. All the votes are transmitted to Washington, D.C. for tallying, and the candidate with the majority of the electoral votes wins the presidency. If no candidate receives a majority of the vote, the responsibility of selecting the next President falls upon the House of Representatives. This elaborate system of Presidential selection is thought by many to be an 18th century anachronism (Hoxie p. 717), what it is in fact is the product of a 200 year old debate over who should select the President and why.

In 1787, the Framers in their infinite wisdom, saw the need to respect the principles of both Federalists and States Righters (republicans) (Hoxie p. 717). Summarily a compromise was struck between those who felt Congress should select the President and those who felt the states should have a say. In 1788 the Electoral College was indoctrinated and placed into operation. The College was to allow people a say in who lead them, but was also to protect against the general public's ignorance of politics. Why the fear of the peoples ignorance of politics? It was argued that the people, left to their own devices could be swayed by a few designing men to elect a king or demagogue (McManus p. 19). With the Electoral College in place the people could make a screened decision about who the highest authority in the land was to be (Bailey & Shafritz (p. 60); at the same time the fear of the newly formed nation being destroyed by a demagogue could be put to rest because wiser men had the final say.

200 years later the system is still designed to safeguard against the ignorant capacities of the people. The Electoral College has remained relatively unchanged in form and function since 1787, the year of its formulation. This in itself poses a problem because in 200 years the stakes have changed yet the College has remained the same. A safeguard against a demagogue may still be relevant, but the College as this safeguard has proved flawed in other capacities. These flaws have shed light on the many paths to undemocratic election. The question then is what shall the priorities be? Shall the flaws be addressed or are they acceptable foibles of a system that has effectively prevented the rise of a king for 200 years? To answer this question we must first consider a number of events past and possible that have or could have occurred as a result of the flaws Electoral College.

The Unfaithful Elector Under the current processes of the Electoral College, when a member of the general electorate casts a vote for a candidate he is in fact casting a vote for an Electoral College member who is an elector for that candidate. Bound only by tradition this College member is expected to remain faithful to the candidate he has initially agreed to elect. This has not always happened. In past instances Electoral College member have proved to be unfaithful. This unfaithful elector ignores the will of the general electorate and instead selects candidate other than the one he was expected to elect (McGaughey, p. 81). This unfaithfulness summarily subjugates all the votes for a candidate in a particular district. In all fairness it is important to note that instances of unfaithful electors are few and far between, and in fact 26 states have laws preventing against unfaithful electors (McGauhey, p.81). Despite this the fact remains that the possibility of an unfaithful elector does exist and it exists because the system is designed to circumvent around direct popular election of the President. The Numbers Flaw The unfaithful elector is an example of how the popular will can be purposely ignored. The Numbers Flaw reveals how the will of the people can be passed over unintentionally due to flaw of design (McNown, Lecture Notes, 2/20/93).

(a)6/b(4) | (a)6/b(6) Candidate a: 18 | Candidate b: 22 -------------|------------ | Electoral Votes (a)6/b(4) | (a)0/b(10) Candidate a: 3 | Candidate b: 1

In this theoretical example candidate (a) receives a minority of the popular votes with 18, but a majority of the electoral votes with three. Candidate (b) receives a majority of the popular votes with 22, but receives only one electoral vote. Under the winner-take-all system, the candidate with the majority of the electoral votes not only wins the state but also receives all the electoral votes for that state. In this hypothetical situation candidate (a) receiving a minority of the popular votes wins the state and takes all the electoral votes. The acceptability of this denial of the popular will, unintentional or otherwise, is questionable to say the least.

Tie Game The problem posed by no one person receiving a majority of the electoral votes (a tie) first came to head in the 1800 elections. The success of political parties served to turn Electoral College members into agents of the parties Bailey & Shafritz p. 61). This so galvanized the 1800 elections that the Republican electors cast their two votes for the two Republican candidates, Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr respectively. It was assumed that Jefferson would be President and Burr the Vice-President. Unfortunately their was no constitutional doctrine to affirm this assumption. As a result the ever audacious Aaron Burr challenged Jefferson election as President and the issue had to be sent to the House for resolution (Bailey & Shafritz, p. 61). Any debating on the issue was only incidental; when all was said and done the issue was decided by one man, Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton, and the Federalists were in control of the House when the decision was to be made. Hamilton, who disagreed with Jefferson but overwhelmingly distrusted Burr, orchestrated a blank ballot initiative among the Federalists which allowed the Republicans to select Jefferson as President (Bailey & Shafritz, p. 61). Though this entire incident was significant the most noteworthy aspect was the fact that the President was essentially chosen by one man. The final decision was taken entirely out of the hands