Electoral College is a means to manipulate elections
Electoral College- a means to manipulate elections
On April 22, 2016 Hans von Spakovsky of the Heritage Foundation wrote an editorial for CNS News titled “What’s Wrong with Directly Electing the President of the United States?”
I suggest reading his article first before reading my rebuttal but, essentially, he sets up a straw man (the NPV) to divert from the real issue (popular vote vs problems with the Electoral College as a system). The NPV is an attempt to circumvent the Electoral College and have the actual popular vote tabulation determine the presidential election without a change to the Constitution. NPV advocates know what a tough hurdle eliminating the EC is by amendment. He attacks the NPV as ripe for fraud and electoral mischief. But it doesn’t matter he uses the NPV as his target. That is his strawman. As Mr Spakovlsky’s commentary highlights, Republicans, despite losing numerous elections know that their ability to win at all is going to be completely due to the Electoral College System. What he is really attacking is the idea of the popular vote itself.
He tries to defend the Electoral College on several points, most of them erroneous and not accurate to the reason the EC was implemented and attacks the National Popular Vote (NPV) Movement on several points.
First, he claims a popular vote undermines the federalism that the Founders enacted to give the actual states a voice in who is elected.
Second, popular vote gives too much power to urban areas over rural areas and protects the rural areas and small states.
Third, he uses the issue of safe states (blue vs red results) which actually has no bearing on the issue.
Fourth, he claims a recount could potentially extend to all fifty states under an NPV (read-popular vote) controversy.
Fifth, the popular vote encourages voter fraud especially in “one party towns where there is no opposition or poll watchers
Finally, should we have multiple candidates on the ballot, the winner could be one with only 35% of the vote- not a real majority
It’s difficult to see how any of his objections to electing a president by popular vote are valid given history or facts on the ground.
1. The Founders did not address the election of the president on the grounds of federalism. Far from it. The Electoral College was the result of debate and compromise at the time of several competing ideas. One idea called for the national legislature (Congress) to elect the chief executive. Another said each of the respective states executives (governors) should elect the president. Another plan suggested the legislature elect a plural executive office (two or three presidents). Hamilton wanted a lifetime appointed executive. Only the proposal to have governors elect the president is remotely “federalist” and it was rejected. In fact the Electoral College was specifically cited by Hamilton as a filter of “smart appropriate people” over the masses to ensure only a good well qualified candidate was elected. We can see that was not actually the case. We have had great presidents, mediocre presidents and terribly unfit presidents.
2. To try to “protect” rural or non-urban voters, the writer actually is upending the concept of one-man/one-vote. If all voters simply vote and the vote is counted- that is equal. But if all voters count and some are given more power simply because they choose to live in rural or non-urban areas he is actually undermining the concept that my vote equals yours.
3. His argument about battle ground states and changing of states from so-called red to blue (and vice versa) is irrelevant. That is demographics of changing mores, ideals, relocation of population, etc. In a true popular vote system, one vote is a strong as another regardless of states. The fact that states have flipped from one party to the other or become battleground states is an effect OF the Electoral College (and not a good one) and not a defense OF the system.
4. Claiming the possibility of a national recount is absurd. The states still manage elections. Recounts would occur on state by state basis and likely only when a state’s votes are so very close or election fraud of some sort is alleged. That is no different than now. In fact, popular vote would actually inhibit massive recounts because the numbers are the numbers. Under our current EC system, recounts in one state as we saw in 2000 with Florida can decide the entire election. Absent the Electoral College, there would have been zero reason to recount in Florida that year.
5. Asserting the popular vote would encourage fraud is equally absurd. The writer then diverts to some wild scenario of “one party towns” and lack of voting oversight. Reality check- we have that NOW! Since states set up their rules for voting and manage elections, reports and lawsuits frequently arise showing towns or even just polling places poorly manned, no oversight, not enough voting machines and shortages of ballots. One small town fraudulently casting. let’s say, all their votes for president in a popular election format would be a drop in the bucket. But a couple small precincts or areas in locations of Florida or Ohio, under the current Electoral College system, could flip an entire state from one candidate to the other. In fact, is is considered to have already happened in Ohio on 2004. The use of electronic voting machines under the Electoral College system is the single biggest threat to election integrity we have. Under a true popular vote mechanism this manipulation would again be a small drop in the overall pool of votes.
6. Touting some hypothetical of multiple candidates and someone being president with only 35% if the vote? Why is less legitimate to be president with 35% of the vote that is still the most votes rather than with 47.9% of the votes when your opponent loses the presidency but beat you by 500,000 votes (2000 Election)?
Republicans want to cling to the Electoral College because it is their only real means to win the presidency precisely because the Electoral College system can be manipulated. States get to choose how the electors are assigned- either winner-take-all, proportional or some other mechanism.
Republicans in winner-take-all states that the popular vote in those states gave all the electors to Obama are now trying to alter the process to make their states proportional (ie. if a candidate gets 60% of the vote he gets 60% of the Electors rather than all 100%).
In states that are proportional, some advocate moving to winner-take-all approach. Those states, which were one by the Republican candidate, still had to give some Electors to the Democrat which of course counted toward the 270 needed to win the presidency. A change to winner-take-all would not have provided Obama with any Electoral College votes from those states.
Finally, and most egregiously, Republican legislators in Michigan hatched a plan and introduced it into the legislature called House Bill 4310. Under this manipulative scenario, Electors would be awarded based on votes for candidates in each of the state’s legislative districts. Michigan has 16 Electoral College votes- one for each of the 14 US House districts and two more for each of the senatorial positions. Due to the manner in which districts are drawn, and the fact that state legisltures draw the districts after a census re-apportionment, and the fact that the Republicans gained control of the legislature in Michigan- the state has 9 districts individually which vote overall Republican and five which vote Democratic. Under the proposed bill, had it been in place in 2012, Romney would have been awarded nine Electoral votes. Obama would have been awarded five Electoral votes based on districts and two more because the bill calls for awarding the two senatorial based Electors to the winner of the most votes overall. So, despite the fact Michigan residents voted 54.21% Obama vs 44.71% Romney (449,313 votes gap), this manipulating legislation would have given more Electoral College votes to Romney.
In summary, Spakovsky’s attempt to claim the Electoral College is the means to ensure integrity and protect the voting public. In reality, the Electoral College is really a fine instrument to manipulate election results because it only takes a small number of votes altered or manipulated in key areas of a given state to affect that state’s Electoral College outcome.
It is time to eliminate the Electoral College while ensuring standards for elections all states must follow.
