This is an editorial submission from a reader like you. We consider all submissions.
Senator Elizabeth Warren recently said during a campaign stop that she would abolish the Electoral College as President in her first term. This is nothing new and is what we have come to expect from even the least authoritarian candidates for President.
Many progressive media outlets and elected officials have been calling for the abolishment of the Electoral College for some time. The most common solution that isn’t outright fascism has been to simply ignore the results of a statewide election and try to override the Electoral College through the so-called National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC).
There are many reasons why the NPVIC is probably an unconstitutional waste of time, including the Compact Clause and the Voting Rights Act. Abolishing the Electoral College would require a Constitutional Amendment, and there is nowhere near the necessary support for such a scheme, especially since it would require, ironically, support from 2/3 of the states.
Although there are certainly a number of states with sufficient numbers of people and public officials who would support eradicating one of the only things keeping the country free of tyranny (albeit unknowingly and with good intentions), an amendment to strip states of their power to swing an election is not going to go over very well in the growing, conservative states or smaller states that only have a voice in the Presidential Election because of the Electoral College.
The Electoral College and Senate exist because the delegates from Vermont and other smaller states (i.e., not Virginia and Pennsylvania) demanded equal as well proportional representation at the federal level and in the choosing of the President. The Senate is supposed to temper the will of the House and force coalition building to accomplish anything.
The beautiful thing about the Electoral College is that it means the President must be chosen by a majority of the diverse states of the country, rather than a simple majority of the country. To be elected President and to accomplish anything in the Senate, you need more than 51% of the country to be on your side. In other words, you need sufficient buy-in from a wide array of peoples to build a coalition that has the most support.
Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution defines the Electoral College as the means by which the states elect the Chief Executive of our Republic (the President). Each state may choose how their Electors are chosen, and each elector can choose whomever they want when voting.
In modern elections, “faithless electors” are uncommon, and many states have laws that issue fines or other penalties to those electors who don’t vote for the candidate they are pledged to by the popular vote of the state. The 2016 election saw the most faithless electors since the ‘70s, including Democratic electors voting for Colin Powell.
Almost no states even mention who the actual electors are on the ballot. Electors, the people we actually choose in Presidential elections, are invisible to the public eye for the most part. Most states have winner-take-all elections, but Nebraska and Maine have a unique method of choosing Electors, which I think should be expanded to other states.
Nebraska and Maine choose Electors at the congressional district level. This means that the Electoral votes of these small states don’t always all go to one candidate. The popular vote winner of the state receives two electors (the Senators), and each district gives an elector to the winner of that district.
What I would propose are reforms at the state level to choose electors – not Presidents – by congressional district instead of using a winner-take-all system. Such a system brings us closer to the original intent of the Constitution: that we choose electors, rather than Presidents. It has the potential to open up the election to candidates who don’t have an R or a D next to their name.
In this way, we can weaken the two-party system and give more power to people who choose to vote their conscience. If voting for the American Solidarity Party or Libertarian candidate could mean more than just a protest vote, but an actual Elector in the Electoral College, more people could be convinced to vote for candidates that more closely represent their views rather than merely the lesser of two evils.
When combined with meaningful and non-partisan congressional district map drawing, making electors visible and reforming the allocation of electors to be by district, instead of winner-take-all, can make each vote truly matter and, hopefully, preserve the Republic just a little while longer.
We are not likely to ever return to the times when we have 1 Republican, 2 Whigs, and 3 Democrats nominated for President. Still, we could return to an era when 3 to 4 different people get electoral votes.
The best part of all of this is that you don’t need federal laws to start it. You don’t even need to amend the Constitution. This whole thing can be done at the state level. State representatives, governors, and even ballot initiatives can all be used to make this happen. This highlights the importance of voting in local elections. Supporting the Constitution means supporting local government as a means to rein in the federal government as necessary.
Thaddeus R. Winker is a father and husband living in the Midwest and a frequent contributor to The Liberty Hawk. By day he works as a software developer but in a past life, he earned an MA in Biblical Studies at the Catholic University of America in Washington, DC and a BA in Classics from Xavier University in Cincinnati, OH. He enjoys fantasy, science fiction, and spending time with his family. You can follow him on twitter @Thadypus.
Do you have a response to this article? Would you like to offer your own take on this topic? Feel free to submit your own article or offer a comment below.
Editor’s Note: An amusing observation I have often had about the electoral college debate is that the large states most vociferously against it (like California) also tend to have the greatest opposition to state splitting proposals. A good example is the Six Californias proposed initiative in 2016. This would have dramatically increased the region’s overall weight in the electoral college (as well as granted the region ten more US Senators). Yet, the initiative failed to even make the ballot because, among other things, it would have weakened overall Democratic control. If insular control of a region under the banner of a single state outweighs the need to have the “voice of the people” heard in the presidential election (with the sweetener being enough Senators to dramatically shift the balance of power in Washington), we must ask ourselves just how committed these Democrats are to their populist message. -Justin
- COVID Stimulus – Round 4 - July 22, 2020
- Faithless Electors are Dead, Long Live the Electoral College - July 10, 2020
- Tulsa, Trump, and Dog Whistles - June 12, 2020
Interesting. The problems arise when no one candidate gets 270 or more Electoral Votes, and it’s outcome is in the perverse hands of popularly elected Senators of those States. The current method for electing Senators would need to be abolished and placed back to its original method of selection in order to keep the States in control of the selection process. That won’t happen because Progressives/Leftists know that would end their ability to steer States with Federal coercion of State leadership, and the “popular vote” can be more easily influenced by deception and money in the populace than in legislatures. Once States get the ability to have controlling voices again, the “mob rule” methods get exposed and laws start getting enforced that bite the liars, thieves, and bullies where they feel it.
Something I’ve been growing fonder of is the idea of expanding Congress. I think it’s just reality we’re never going to be able to repeal 17th amendment, but we could at least approach the original method by expanding Senate representation to 4 Senators from each state, 2 that are still popularly elected and an additional 2 that are appointed according to the old model.