GUEST OPINION: Presidents Should Graduate From the Electoral
College
Thursday, October 28, 2004
by
John T. Plecnik
Illinois Leader
Which states will go red (GOP) and which states will go blue (Dem)
on Tuesday? (Source of graphic: Business Week)
OPINION - In 2000, then-Gov. George W. Bush lost the popular vote
to Vice President Al Gore, but won the Electoral College to become
the forty-third president of the United States.
Since that time, many have argued against the wisdom of retaining
the Electoral College.
Regardless of your politics, think twice before sacrificing the system.
Even card-carrying members of the Al Gore fan club may have something
to lose.
First off, the U.S. Constitution was and is meant to be a power sharing
agreement between the state and federal governments.
This balance has historically served as yet another mechanism to prevent
the concentration of power in any single individual or group. Over
time, the sovereignty of state governments has slowly eroded.
The growing administrative state, an expansive judicial application
of constitutional principles to state governments, and the popular
election of U.S. senators via the Seventeenth Amendment have all tipped
the balance in favor of the feds.
Replacing the state-by-state Electoral College with a national election
determined by the popular vote could be the proverbial last nail in
the coffin of our federalist system.
Despite the virtue of checks and balances, perhaps the most convincing
argument for retaining the Electoral College is the evils of its likely
alternative.
Our current system forces candidates to appeal to a broad base of
voters. Polling 90% in New York is roughly equivalent to winning a
bare majority in Texas.
Today, Bush and U.S. Sen. John Kerry (D-M.A.) must venture out of
friendly territory to win over moderates in the Midwest.
If we were to instate a system of national majority rule based on
the popular vote, our candidates would spend a lot more time preaching
to the choir.
Exciting another million Christian conservatives in Texas (or gay
activists in Massachusetts) would suddenly cease to be superfluous.
If anything, this would increase the partisan divide between Republicans
and Democrats.
Advocating more equal treatment of each voter has become a favorite
talking point for proponents of the popular vote.
While it is true that a state-by-state system tends to create temporary
situations whereby residents of some states, like Florida or Ohio,
become the undecided darlings of politics from year-to-year, the Electoral
College actually protects voter equality in a more fundamental sense.
Operating under a purely national system, politicians would flock
to cities with the same vigor they pursue contributions from special
interests.
Reaching blocks of voters in population centers like New York, N.Y.,
and Charlotte, N.C., is much cheaper than seeking the support of sparser
communities in smaller states. One could conceivably win a purely
metropolitan presidential campaign in the nation’s twenty largest
cities.
Incentivizing this strategy would have the practical effect of disenfranchising
millions of suburban, rural, and small town voters.
Furthermore, in an electorate as divided, litigious, and suspicious
as that of Twenty-First Century America, certain attendant benefits
of the Electoral College have become uniquely valuable.
By holding separate elections for each state, corruption in any single
state is limited to tainting its own electoral vote count. Additionally,
in close elections, the Electoral College can actually simplify recount
processes. In the event of a successful legal challenge, it may only
be necessary to recount the votes of one state, rather than those
of an entire nation.
In sum, the Electoral College preserves federalism, promotes bipartisanship,
protects equality, and provides a more workable system for our divided
era.
Besides, this time around, “W” would win either way.
© 2004 IllinoisLeader.com -- all rights reserved
_______________
John T. Plecnik is a twenty-year-old law student at Duke University
and Executive Editor of The Devil’s Advocate. As Policy Advisor for
the Duke Chapter, John authored the first-ever statewide platform
for the North Carolina Federation of College Republicans.