The Electoral College: A Relic of Racism and Undemocratic Practice
The Electoral College, a cornerstone of the American presidential election system, has been the subject of intense debate and criticism since its inception. As the nation approaches another presidential election, it is crucial to re-examine this governmental institution that has increasingly become the deciding factor in American presidential races. While proponents argue that it balances power among states and prevents the rise of demagogues, critics denounce it as an undemocratic and racially biased system that undermines the principle of "one person, one vote."
This article delves into the major criticisms of the Electoral College, exploring its historical roots, its impact on voter representation, and the ongoing efforts to reform or abolish it.
How the Electoral College Works
Despite its substantial-sounding name, the Electoral College is neither a place nor a permanent body: it’s more of a process. The Electoral College is composed of electors who each cast one electoral vote following the voting that takes place in the general election. Each state gets a certain number of electors based on its total number of representatives in Congress, which reflects population numbers for that state. There are 538 members of the Electoral College nationwide: one for each state’s members of Congress, and three more for the District of Columbia. That’s where the presidential election’s famous number comes from: The candidate with at least 270 electoral votes (a majority) wins. As we’ve seen in some previous elections, that candidate doesn’t have to win the popular vote.
In each state, political parties designate their own slate of potential electors before the November general election. Nearly every state and the District of Columbia have a winner-take-all policy, meaning only those electors tied to a candidate who won the popular vote in their state will send their ballots to the Capitol. Maine and Nebraska divide the ballots, giving two “at-large” electoral votes to the state’s overall winner but also one for each congressional district won. If presidents were elected purely by popular vote, a candidate could win the presidency with less than 50% of the vote. The electors then gather in mid-December to cast their votes for president and vice president, sending the results to Congress. Congress then certifies the votes, on Jan. 6. If there’s a tie, the House of Representatives would hold a contingent election to choose the president.
Disproportionate Representation
One of the primary criticisms of the Electoral College is that it gives disproportionate weight to voters in smaller states compared to those in more populous ones. Every state gets a minimum of three electoral votes. However, each state’s total allotment is based on its representation in the Senate (always two people) and the House (varies by population).
Read also: Your Guide to Nursing Internships
As an example, more people live in Washington, D.C., than in Wyoming, the least populous state in the union; but they both get three electoral votes. Federal law doesn’t require electors to vote in a way that reflects that results in their state, but 37 states have laws requiring them to do so. An elector who defies that assignment is called a faithless elector, and the state has the choice whether to tolerate them. One of the advantages is the end result is clear: “Somebody wins; somebody gets a majority of the electoral votes,” says DeRosa.
This disparity means that a vote in a less populous state carries more weight than a vote in a more populous state, effectively disenfranchising voters in larger states.
The Possibility of a President Losing the Popular Vote
The most glaring flaw of the Electoral College is its potential to elect a president who did not win the popular vote. This has occurred in several US presidential elections, including 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016. In these instances, the candidate who received fewer individual votes nationwide emerged victorious due to the allocation of electoral votes.
This outcome undermines the democratic principle of majority rule and can lead to a sense of illegitimacy for the elected president. Critics argue that it creates a system where the will of the people can be subverted by an antiquated and undemocratic process.
Vote Suppression
The biggest problem with the Electoral College is that it encourages vote suppression. In the past, Southern states always had an advantage in the population count, because they got electoral votes appointed on the basis of their slave populations and their white populations. After the Civil War, former slaves were counted as “whole” persons, not three-fifths of one, for purposes of electoral vote allotment. But Black voter suppression still took place through Jim Crow laws. This further “inflated the electoral count of people who were not representing all the people in their state.
Read also: The Return of College Football Gaming
The Focus on Swing States
Under the current system, if it seems clear that one candidate is likely to win a particular state, there is no reason for the other candidate to campaign in that state and try to capture any votes. As a result, rather than visiting as many states as they can, candidates end up focusing their time and resources on a small number of “swing states.” Swing states are states that can reasonably be won by either the Democratic or Republican Presidential candidate and these states are often targeted for campaigning by both parties. This practice contradicts the idea that Presidential candidates should share their platform and seek as many votes as possible in every state across the whole country.
Because the concentration of black people is highest in the South, their preferred presidential candidate is virtually assured to lose their home states’ electoral votes. Despite black voting patterns to the contrary, five of the six states whose populations are 25 percent or more black have been reliably red in recent presidential elections. Three of those states have not voted for a Democrat in more than four decades. Under the Electoral College, black votes are submerged. It’s the precise reason for the success of the southern strategy. It’s precisely how, as Buckley might say, the South has prevailed.
Historical Roots in Racism
Critics argue that the Electoral College has roots in racism. One theory is that its roots are in slavery. At the Convention, Southern states successfully argued for using enslaved people’s population numbers to bolster their power in Congress, claiming that each slave should be counted as 3/5 of a person - but not have the right to vote - when calculating representation. A direct popular vote for the presidency would undermine that power. But if the Electoral College were to be based on representation in Congress, the Three Fifths Compromise’s amplification of Southern political power would carry over into choosing the president.
If there had been no Electoral College, the South would have lost every Presidential election because a large percentage of the Southern population were enslaved people who could not vote. Instead, eight of the first nine Presidential races were won by a Virginian based on electoral votes.
Even James Madison, who professed a theoretical commitment to popular democracy, succumbed to the realities of the situation. The future president acknowledged that “the people at large was in his opinion the fittest” to select the chief executive. And yet, in the same breath, he captured the sentiment of the South in the most “diplomatic” terms: “There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections.”
Read also: Transfer pathways after community college
Public Opinion and Reform Efforts
Going back more than 50 years, a majority of voters have supported doing away with the Electoral College. Momentum to replace the Electoral College got a boost in 1968, when Richard Nixon notched a razor-thin win of the popular vote - after earlier concerns that segregationist George Wallace’s third-party candidacy might siphon enough electoral votes to prevent a clear majority.
In the face of high federal hurdles such as a constitutional amendment, there is a push for change at the state level. Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, states adopt legislation requiring them to award their electors’ votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the popular vote nationwide. The mechanism would kick in once enough states join the compact to decide a presidential election.
tags: #major #criticism #of #the #electoral #college
