By CLIFF DUNN
On Monday, December 17, Barack Obama will be officially elected President of the United States (I hope), when the Electoral College meets to approve the popular ballot results of the voters “in their several states.”
In the decades since I first came to understand the import of the Electors and their role in preserving the mandate of both the majority and the wishes of the minority, I came to realize how relevant it remains (despite centuries of criticism), as well as how much it is a pillar of a system that—eventually—will provide full rights for all American citizens.
I’m going to endeavor to render a non-sleep-making primer on the history and purpose of the Electoral College (a sort of “Schoolhouse Rock” for the Reality-TV Generation).
In 1787, an influential group of the Founders pushed through a plan whereby a body of “electors” apportioned among the states (in the same numbers as their congressional representatives—under a formula that resulted in, among other things, the vile Three-fifths compromise of counting “portions” of slaves for congressional representation), chosen by each state “in such manner as its Legislature may direct,” would select the President.
In addition to the slave-holding states, the Electoral College was popular with the smaller states, rising out of their concerns that large population states (think modern California, New York, Texas, and Florida) would determine the results of Presidential elections.
In the context of 21st Century Presidential politics, the Electoral College is often seen as an anachronistic, undemocratic means of choosing a Chief Executive (since it is the electors who actually do the electing of the President, rather than the people)—one that should be replaced through popular vote choice of the winner. I beg to disagree.
The state parties choose a slate of electors they trust will vote for the party’s nominee. Almost every state awards its electoral votes to the state’s popular vote winner. The formula for each state’s electors is based on two senators and two Electoral College votes for each state, with additional electoral votes for each state based on population.
Based on this formula, it’s possible—as happened in 2000, when Bush had fewer popular votes than Gore, but more electoral votes—that the winner of the popular vote does not win the electoral vote. But this is a rarity in American politics; before 2000, that balance was last disturbed in 1888.
Despite the hyperbole of both major parties, “landslide” is a word that isn’t often heard with respect to American Presidential elections, in which most races are closely decided.
An analysis of every Presidential election since 1980 (which saw the election of Ronald Reagan and what is likely the last major political realignment, prior to Obama’s re-election and the birth of what might be a Neo-Progressive Era (which includes state marriage equality wins, legalization of marijuana, and a cultural shift in attitudes towards immigration and immigrants) shows that in each of the last eight Presidential races, only one (1984) represented a “landslide” victory (as it is usually defined by a 10-point or greater margin of victory).
But back to the Electoral College and the reasons for its continued necessity in a modern context. Unlike the popular vote, which, as in 2000, can reflect a too-close-too-call outcome, the winning Presidential candidate’s share of Electoral College votes is larger than his share of the popular vote. (Example: Obama received 51.3 percent of the popular vote, but should receive 61.7 percent of the Electoral Vote on December 17.)
If the Electoral College were eliminated, any “close call” race would be a temptation to the loser to request a recount, creating the possibility of a Constitutional crisis, as nearly happened in 2000 over Florida’s disputed votes, with party lawyers going state-by-state and creating a climate of paralysis, conflict, and crisis (just imagine Florida 2000 by an exponential of 50-plus-the District of Columbia).
The existence of the Electoral College likewise requires that the presidential nominees to campaign across the country, rather than in large population areas. It means that—as was seen this year, again in Florida—the power of constituent groups campaigning like hell shifted the balance from “likely” Romney to “thankfully” Obama (sorry, Republicans).
It means that the huge local outpouring of pro-Obama support made an enormous difference, one that is reflected in Obama’s 29 electoral vote win from the Sunshine State.
Like it or not, the Electoral College means that Obama is every Americans’ president. Or at least, a boy can hope.
