| The
Electoral College
by John T. Plecnik
 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 retaining the Electoral College. Regardless of one’s
politics, people should think twice before abandoning a system that
has served the country so well for so long. Even card-carrying members
of the Al Gore fan club may have something to lose.
First,
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 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 federal 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 institute 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 switching to a single, national 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, Los Angeles and even 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. A single
national vote 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 have won either
way.
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. Visit
JohnPlecnik.com, home of 'The Duke Law Conservative.
Email
the Editor
|
