Different Alternatives to Reforming the Electoral College System

In our current governmental system democracy does not rule, the people do not rule, but electors of the fifty different states do because the states’ electors are the determining factor behind who will be the next president of the United States. By creating the Electoral College, James Madison, commonly known as the father of the constitution, instituted a paradoxical system that has discrepancies when voter’s cast their vote for the president of the United States. For example, a president can win the presidency, but lose the overall majority popular vote. However, Jean Jacques Rousseau, political philosopher, says that “each man, in giving his vote, states his opinion on that point; and the general will is found by counting votes” (Jacob 200). Unfortunately, the framers of the constitution originally did not comply with Rousseau’s notion of direct election by the people because of a fringe disagreement between the states. The framers “intention was to devise a compromise that would satisfy a number of different constituencies needed to ratify the Constitution, primarily the small states and the slave states” (Pfiffner 65). As a result, the paradox behind the current electoral system causes controversy in our country and poses a question of the legitimacy of our nations’ democratic values. Thus, the Electoral College should be reformed because having a president that wins the electoral vote, but loses the popular vote disregards the voice of the people.

Presidential candidates tend to focus their campaigning on states that have the most electors in order to get the most electoral votes. Most states use a winner-take-all system, in which the candidate with the most votes in that state receives all of the state's electoral votes. As a result, candidates tend to focus more of their time on larger states without a clear favorite. “With direct popular election all votes would count for candidates, and they would be less likely to write off many states merely because they could not win the plurality in that state” (Pfiffner 65). Others feel that the Electoral College turns presidential elections into massive efforts by presidential candidates to win the votes of a small number of voters in a few key states, rather than the support of the American people as a whole. “Most candidates do not run a fifty state strategy. Instead, because many states tend to vote consistently over time, they focus on the fifteen to twenty states that swing back and forth between the two major parties” (West 18). This exemplifies the flawed system of the Electoral College to leave out certain states because candidates will not waste their time and money on a state that they know will not vote for them.

Some say that we should just dispose of the whole Electoral College system; however, because it is mandated by the constitution, it is unlikely ratification that would take place, essentially negating that alternative. The Seventeenth Amendment in 1913 provided for direct election of senators and proponents of abolishing the Electoral College feel that we need a constitutional amendment where the people directly elect the president. Since the framing of the constitution slavery has been abolished, women have been given the right to vote and all citizens eighteen and over are permitted to take part in the election process. These three reasons were some of the initial factors behind the framers of the constitution initially instituting the Electoral College; however, this system is now paradoxical and unnecessary. Doris Haddock, a political activist, once said, today “Democracy is not something we have, but something we do” (Mahe and Covert 133). Nevertheless, we do not have a complete democracy because the president is still elected indirectly by the people and “indirect democracy” is not “more closely into line with the original ideal of rule by the people” (Arblaster 79). This exemplifies the dire need for a reformation of the current Electoral College system because of the many controversies the system has caused.

Then there is the issue with the “Faithless Elector” where a voter thinks that they are voting for a particular president but the “Faithless Elector” votes for another presidential candidate. A “faithless elector” is an elector that decides to vote another way than he/she is designated to vote, or simply casts a blank ballot. The Electoral College can be misleading to citizens because most “citizens who go to the polls to vote for president think that they are voting for the president rather than a slate of electors” (Pfiffner 62). For example, most states do not list the names of potential electors on a ballot, but rather the names of the candidates they have promised to vote for. This exemplifies the common falsification that can take place when citizens go to the polls and cast their ballot for a particular elector that could end up being a “faithless elector”. As a result, the voters’ vote is overruled by an elector who will not comply with the rules of his/her state or the wishes of the people. The most recent “faithless elector” was from Washington D.C. in the 2000 presidential election.

A solution to prohibiting a “faithless elector” would be to institute the “automatic plan”. The “candidate who won the plurality of popular votes in the state” would automatically get all of the electoral votes (Pfiffner 64). “Opponents of the automatic plan argue that it perpetuates many of the perceived inequities inherent in the present Electoral College system of electing the President and the Vice President” (Dahl 396). This exemplifies an alternative to the current Electoral College, but does not fully reform the selection of the president in securing a victory for the winner of the popular vote.

Opponents to the proposed reformation of the Electoral College claim that we are a republic and not a democracy. They say, “The governmental system was designed by the Framers to be a republic” and we should not reform the Electoral College system because it is a system that has been in use for over two hundred years (Pfiffner 60). Nevertheless, supporters for reform of the Electoral College system feel that “The president and vice president are the only national officials who represent the people as a whole and that the choice of the people is best approximated by the candidate who wins the most votes” (Pfiffner 61). America has practiced many democratic principles, but has yet to institute a constitutional amendment that would prohibit the winner of the popular vote from losing the presidency. Raymond Aron, one of the greatest teachers of political philosophy in the twentieth century, states, “There is government for the people; there is no government by the people” (Arblaster 50). Ensuring that the winner of the popular vote does not lose the presidency will make our system a “government by the people”.

Opponents to direct elections feel that presidential candidates will focus their campaigning practices in major cities. Opponents to reformation of the Electoral College
fail to realize that “swing states” enable candidates to focus on the states that are still indecisive. This parallelism is also an issue that brings out the flawed system of the Electoral College and the need for reformation. In How Democratic Is the American Constitution?, Robert Dahl, political scientist, states “The American Constitution ensures both that many people are poorly represented and that government often is ineffective” (Pomper). As we have seen throughout our nation’s history, many citizens agree with Dahl that people are poorly represented when the runner-up of the popular vote wins the presidency.

Supporters of the Electoral College feel that although the system is outdated and people are more educated, they are still not fully knowledgeable enough to directly elect the president. However, “The rise of television has had a profound impact” on voters because television has given Americans the opportunity to watch the news instead of read it in the paper (Edwards 207). Most Americans do not have time to read the paper everyday and the mass media have provided citizens an opportunity to stay politically informed at a minute’s notice. “Candidates seek to assemble a majority of Electoral College votes by winning targeted states. This Electoral College structure has enormous implications for advertising strategies” (West 18). However, Americans are more informed than they were 200 years ago. As a result, voters are more prepared to directly elect the president and the need for the Electoral College has diminished. According to West, “people ‘know too much’ to be influenced by ads” and are knowledgeable enough to decide which candidate is the best presidential elect (West 18). Most citizens would
agree that the need for the Electoral College is unnecessary and has become perceived upon as undemocratic over the years.

A solution to reforming the Electoral College is the Maine-Nebraska plan. The plan allocates electoral votes based on the plurality in different districts and gives two electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote in the state as a whole (Pfiffner 64). The Electoral College would be more closely geared to the popular vote because of the plurality vote winners in each district, but would still leave the possibility of the runner up becoming president. The Maine -Nebraska plan could be adopted by the states on a volunteer basis and does not require a constitutional amendment. The Main-Nebraska plan is more democratic and a better reform solution to ensuring that the plurality of each presidential candidate is evenly dispersed throughout the state.

Another solution to reformation of the Electoral College is the “national bonus” plan. The “national bonus” plan “would grant a bonus of 102 electoral votes to the candidate who wins the most popular votes” almost eliminating the chances of the winner of the electoral vote becoming president (Pfiffner 65). The national bonus plan creates a more democratic approach to ensuring that the runner up of the popular vote does not become president. Unlike the Main-Nebraska plan, the national bonus plan would require a constitutional amendment, but elimination of the Electoral College would override the need for the “national bonus” plan.

The Electoral College should be reformed because having a presidential candidate win the electoral vote and lose the popular vote causes controversy in our country. The most recent example of such controversy was the presidential election in 2000 between
George W. Bush and Al Gore. “The Supreme Court decisively intervened in the disputed presidential election of 2000, in the famous (or infamous) case of Bush v. Gore. Its decision – a very controversial one – in effect chose the next president of the United States (George W. Bush). In part, the Supreme Court, in this case, was overruling or forestalling actions of the Florida Supreme Court. After all, the state courts are, in their own sphere, political actors too, and often very significant ones” as exemplified with the Bush v. Gore case (Friedman 179). Gore won the popular vote, but lost the electoral vote by one deciding state  Florida. Gore had a clear victory within the popular vote, but the Electoral College system shortchanged the presidential candidate from becoming president. Instead, the country had to wait for the presidential outcome and the deciding factor was from an unelected Supreme Court. This strongly exemplifies the urgent need for a constitutional amendment to reform the Electoral College system to guarantee that the majority winner of the popular vote does not lose the presidency.

Ultimately, the Electoral College is illogical and contradictory to our American democratic values. “In order to form a more perfect union” the Electoral College needs to be reformed to suit the American people and prohibit a presidential candidate that wins the popular vote from losing the presidency as we have seen in previous elections (Edwards 705). “The seeming irrationality of conflicts inescapably causes impatience and intolerance among proponents of reforms” (Dahl 91). Hopefully, one day Americans will be able to directly elect the president and abolish the Electoral College system.