Electoral College: Is it time to shake up the system?
United States Electoral College, state by state.
Public domain image from Wikimedia Commons.
Editor's note: This post is part of a series by Dr. Baker on Our Values about core American values. This week, Dr. Baker is discussing the Electoral College, weighing its pros and cons and stating the public's opinion on whether or not it should be reformed or abolished.
The debate already is rising across the nation: Is it time to shake up the Electoral College?
Hundreds of news stories from NPR to newspapers are raising questions under headlines such as: “Is the Electoral College antiquated?” “Tampering with the Electoral College,” and one recent Washington Post commentary headlined “Leave Bad Enough Alone.”
Debates about our system of indirect election have arisen since the beginning when it was prescribed in the U.S. Constitution, as we will discuss in our series this week.
Today, I’d like to ask this fundamental question: Would you rather have the president elected by popular vote — that is, elected directly by the American people — or do you prefer the current indirect system, where voters elect electors who formally cast the vote?
Under the current system, the candidate who gets the most votes nationwide is not always the winner. This has happened three times so far: 1876, 1888, and 2000. The winners were all Republicans: Rutherford Hayes, Benjamin Harrison and George W. Bush.
In each case, the winner received more electoral votes than his opponent, though the opponents received more votes cast by citizens. In the latest instance, many Democrats felt Bush “stole” the election, while many Republicans renewed their faith in the wisdom of the founding fathers to avoid direct democracy.
Almost every state operates with a winner-takes-all system. This means that the candidate with the most popular votes gets all electoral votes. All but two states — Maine and Nebraska — use this method.
Maine and Nebraska use the Congressional District Method. This means that a candidate gets electoral votes proportionately, based on the popular vote in each state congressional district.
Today, there’s a proposal to use this proportional method in Pennsylvania. If it had been used in 2008, McCain would have received 11 electoral votes to Obama’s 10 — even though Obama won the statewide popular vote by 10 points. Republicans who favor the change say it’s a fairer system; opponents say it’s just a Republican political ploy meant to get their candidate in office in 2012.
But the Pennsylvanian proposal still retains the Electoral College system.
Is it time to do away with the Electoral College altogether?
Do you prefer abolishing the Electoral College in favor of direct voting?
Or, do you think it’s better to stay with our system of indirect elections?
How does your opinion stack up?
Would you vote to abolish the Electoral College? Yesterday, we reported on the rising political furor over our system of electing presidents. Today, let’s find out how your opinion stacks up with others.
FIRST: How many proposals have been made to reform or eliminate the Electoral College? 100? 200? 300?
You might be surprised. I was.
The answer is: More than 700 proposals to amend, reform, or abolish the Electoral College have been introduced in Congress over the past 200 years, according to the National Archives & Records Administration (NARA).
“There have been more proposals for Constitutional amendments on changing the Electoral College than on any other subject,” NARA reports.
SECOND: What do Americans think?
The answer is: If the Electoral College were put to a popular vote — it would be dumped. A majority of Americans oppose this system of indirect elections, preferring that the president be elected directly by citizens.
In 2000, 61 percent wanted to replace the Electoral College with a system of direct elections, according to Gallup, and this was the same percentage in 2004. A survey in 2010 by a different polling outfit puts the figure even higher: three of four (74 percent) Americans want to scrap the Electoral College.
In past surveys, a large majority of lawyers have favored abolishing the system, according to NARA. In contrast, most political scientists support it.
Would you vote to abolish the Electoral College?
What would you replace it with?
Originally published at www.OurValues.org, an online experiment in civil dialogue on American values.
Dr. Wayne E. Baker is a sociologist on the faculty of the University of Michigan Ross School of Business. Baker blogs daily at Our Values and can be reached at ourvaluesproject@gmail.com or on Facebook.
Comments
aabikes
Thu, Oct 6, 2011 : 1:10 p.m.
Instant run-off voting. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting" rel='nofollow'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting</a>
Roadman
Thu, Oct 6, 2011 : 5:01 a.m.
I was previously actually part of the process in which the electors are chosen. At the Republican and Democratic Party state conventions during presidential cycles the state convention delegates are assigned to their respective congressional district caucuses and the district charperson requests nominations from the state party delegates. The nominated parties are put to a vote by the delegates from the district and the top vote-getter is nominated as a party elector and will vote if his/her party wins the state. I like the current process and wish it would be kept.
mvymvy
Thu, Oct 6, 2011 : 12:26 a.m.
A survey of 800 Michigan voters conducted on December 2-3, 2008 showed 73% overall support for a national popular vote for President. Support was 73% among independents, 78% among Democrats, and 68% among Republicans. By age, support was 77% among 18-29 year olds, 67% among 30-45 year olds, 74% among 46-65 year olds, and 75% for those older than 65. By gender, support was 86% among women and 59% among men. <a href="http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/polls.php#MI_2008DEC" rel='nofollow'>http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/polls.php#MI_2008DEC</a>
mvymvy
Thu, Oct 6, 2011 : 12:25 a.m.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republican voters, Democratic voters, and independent voters, as well as every demographic group surveyed in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in closely divided Battleground states: CO - 68%, FL - 78%, IA 75%, MI - 73%, MO - 70%, NH - 69%, NV - 72%, NM-- 76%, NC - 74%, OH - 70%, PA - 78%, VA - 74%, and WI - 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK - 70%, DC - 76%, DE - 75%, ID - 77%, ME - 77%, MT - 72%, NE 74%, NH - 69%, NV - 72%, NM - 76%, OK - 81%, RI - 74%, SD - 71%, UT - 70%, VT - 75%, WV - 81%, and WY - 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR - 80%,, KY- 80%, MS - 77%, MO - 70%, NC - 74%, OK - 81%, SC - 71%, TN - 83%, VA - 74%, and WV - 81%; and in other states polled: CA - 70%, CT - 74%, MA - 73%, MN - 75%, NY - 79%, OR - 76%, and WA - 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should get elected. To abolish the Electoral College would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population. The National Popular Vote bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in AR, CT, DE, DC, ME, MI, NV, NM, NY, NC, and OR, and both houses in CA, CO, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, RI, VT, and WA. The bill has been enacted by DC (3), HI (4), IL (19), NJ (14), MD (11), MA (10), CA (55), VT (3), and WA (13). These 9 jurisdictions possess 132 electoral votes -- 49% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect. NationalPopularVote
mvymvy
Thu, Oct 6, 2011 : 12:23 a.m.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). It is a state-based approach, that preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College. It assures that every vote is equal and that every voter will matter in every state in every presidential election, as in virtually every other election in the country. Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states would get the 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. That majority of electoral votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states wins the presidency. National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in each state and district (in ME and NE). Now their votes are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. Now they don't matter to their candidate. Elections wouldn't be about winning states or districts (in ME and NE). No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. Every vote, everywhere would be counted equally for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. The political reality would be that when every vote is equal, the campaign must be run in every part of the country. The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.
mvymvy
Thu, Oct 6, 2011 : 12:19 a.m.
The Pennsylvania proposal would award electoral votes to the winner of each congressional district. That is different from "proportional". No state uses a proportional method. Republican legislators seem quite "confused" about the merits and fairness of the congressional district method. The leadership committee of the Nebraska Republican Party just adopted a resolution requiring all GOP elected officials to favor overturning their district method for awarding electoral votes or lose the party's support. While in Pennsylvania, Republican legislators insist we must change from the winner-take-all method to the district method. And up in Maine, the only other state beside Nebraska to use the district method, earlier this year, Republican leaders proposed and passed a constitutional amendment that, if passed at referendum, will require a 2/3rds vote in all future redistricting decisions. Now they want to pass a majority-only plan to make redistricting in their favor even easier. Dividing PA's electoral votes by district would magnify the worst features of the system and not reflect the diversity of PA. The district approach would provide less incentive for presidential candidates to campaign in all PA districts and would not focus the candidates' attention to issues of concern to the whole state. Candidates would have no reason to campaign in districts where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. Due to gerrymandering, in 2008, only 4 PA districts were competitive. When votes matter, presidential candidates vigorously solicit those voters. When votes don't matter, they ignore those areas.