Re: Illinois State Lawmakers Look to Help Obama
Here's an explanation for the EC:
[QUOTE]After the 2000 election, most Democrats, and many others, [URL="http://theelectoralcollegesucks.com/"][COLOR=#99ccff]jumped all over[/COLOR][/URL] the "anachronistic" Electoral College, decrying it as a vestige of the past that needs reform or elimination. Why not just have a national vote for President? After all states don't mean all that much any more. Others asked "why winner-takes-all in each state?" Let's divvy it up [URL="http://www.bushcountry.org/news/oct_news_pages/g_102803_aten_2000_presidential_election_amendment_electoral_college.htm"][COLOR=#99ccff]by Congressional seat[/COLOR][/URL], [URL="http://www.homestead.com/northerncityjournal/files/vol01_45.html"][COLOR=#99ccff]they suggested[/COLOR][/URL] (Maine and Nebraska do just this (although it didn't matter in 2000)). Or perhaps [URL="http://www.ballot-access.org/2000/apportion.html"][COLOR=#99ccff]apportion the electoral vote[/COLOR][/URL] to the percentage each candidate won in the state?
I like none of these -- of all the arrangements, the electoral college still seems best. While it has the obvious (and recently demonstrated) "defect" of deciding close elections differently than the popular vote, this defect is intentional, and serves a purpose.
The Framer's reasons for an Electoral College were several. In order to accomodate the small-state/big-state compromise that led to the 2-vote-per-state Senate, they needed a method to allow small states slightly greater weight in selecting a President. There was great fear that, in a strict popular vote election, the urban states would decide all contests, and no candidate would even consider the issues of the smaller and rural states. Yet they wanted the election conducted in the States, not in Congress. The EC solved this, providing a tie-breaker in close elections where the candidate taking the most states (of any size) has an advantage (the two "senate seat" votes). This is precisely what happened in 2000.
Another reason is what we would today call a "firewall." Even in 1787, state politics were dicey enough that no one in, say, Virginia, wanted to absolutely rely on vote-counting in, say, New Jersey. After all, Eldridge Gerry (inventor of the "gerrymander") was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention. In more recent years, vote-counting in Chicago and St. Louis has been quite suspect. In a close election for President, there would be great temptation for local officials to pad the vote if the election was strictly by popular vote. Even with the EC it happens (e.g. 1960 Chicago), but the damage cannot extend past the given state's electors. Note that much of the controversy in Florida in 2000 involved local vote counting practices, state election official's behavior, and the Florida Supreme Court's wholesale rewriting of election law. Which brings up the next point...
A third (and probably more modern) reason is that recounts in a close election are also limited to the state or states in question. Consider the mess in Florida. Then consider the mess of a nationwide recount, with 50 state Supreme Courts, 50 sets of state election officials, and tens of thousands of local election boards. Some of whom are going to cheat to get their man over. There is no natural closure in a close election in this kind of system. We'd still be at it.
Lastly, there is the matter of needing a majority. In the electoral vote system, it is quite possible to have a majority of electoral votes without a majority of popular votes -- the last President to be elected with a popular vote majority was George Bush the Elder. Clinton, Carter, Nixon (1968) and Kennedy all were elected with less than 50% of the popular vote. But the EC all gave them a majority as the splinter party votes were eliminated at the state level. Of third-party candidates in recent history, only George Wallace in 1968 won any states. In a direct vote system, the requirement for a majority would be necessarily abolished. This is perhaps acceptable, but could lead to Presidents elected with over 60% opposition.
Now, what about the "fairer" Congressional-district apportionment, or straight state-wide vote apportionment, rather than winner-take all? The first will be a non-starter until there is no such thing as a Gerrymander. It is easy to "fix" the partisan outcome in a congressional district by careful attention to district line drawing. Wonderously odd results can be manufactured. In 1988, the two major parties polled even for Congress, but the Democrats gained a large majority of seats due to gerrymandering. The second option allows significant third-party vote totals, or nearly any such vote totals in a close election, to throw the whole thing into the House of Representatives. Nader would have received enough electoral votes in 2000 in this system to throw the election into the House (and therefore to Bush). Historically, this has been a bad thing, so I see no reason to make it more likely.
One last note, of the suggested alternate choices, only a popular vote method elects Gore in 2000. No matter how you apportion electoral votes (winner-takes-all, congressional district or statewise proportional) Bush wins (if only in the House), and in the congressional district system, Bush wins handily.[SIZE=1]Posted by Kevin Murphy at December 11, 2003 12:08 AM [/SIZE][/QUOTE]