The US Electoral College is a difficult mechanism to explain. Its value as an invisible hand in creating a two-party system is equally difficult to explain. Tara Ross explains this relationship well in her book “Why We Need the Electoral College.”
In this blog, I want to draw an analogy of the College to an apartment association. I’m experimenting with Microsoft’s Co-Pilot to help write this post.
Map of the Electoral College elector count for the 2016 Presidential Election. Gage, CC BY-SA 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0, via Wikimedia Commons.
The Analogy
Imagine you live in a large apartment complex where each apartment represents a state in the US. Some apartments are bigger, with more family members (larger populations), while others are smaller, with fewer family members (smaller populations).
Now, suppose the apartment complex wants to make a collective decision, like choosing a new landlord. Instead of each individual family member having a direct vote, each apartment gets a certain number of votes based on the size of the family living there.
Here’s how it works.
Size of the Apartment (State): Each apartment has a number of votes proportional to its size. Bigger apartments with more family members get more votes, while smaller apartments get fewer votes. This is similar to how states with larger populations have more electoral votes.
Electors (Family Representatives): Instead of every individual voting, each apartment selects representatives (electors) who will cast the votes on behalf of the family. These electors pledge to vote in line with the preferences of the majority of their family members.
Voting Day: On the designated day, the electors from each apartment gather to cast their votes for the landlord. The candidate who receives the majority of votes from these electors becomes the new landlord.
Majority Wins: To win, a candidate doesn’t need the majority of individual family members’ votes but must secure the majority of the total votes from the electors, reflecting the combined preferences of the apartments.
By using this system, the apartment complex ensures that both larger and smaller apartments have a say in the decision, balancing the influence of both. This prevents any single large apartment from having all the power while still considering the voices of those in smaller apartments.
This analogy helps to illustrate how the Electoral College works: balancing the influence of states with different populations, ensuring that both large and small states have a voice in presidential elections.
The Founding Fathers debating the elements such as the Electoral College of the US Constitution.
Large Families
Let’s continue with our apartment complex analogy. Imagine if the voting system was purely based on the number of family members without any balancing mechanism like the Electoral College. Here’s how a large family might have undue influence:
Overshadowing Smaller Families: If Apartment A has 10 family members and Apartment B has only 3, and each family member gets one vote, Apartment A’s choice will always overshadow Apartment B’s. The smaller apartments might feel their preferences are insignificant compared to the larger ones.
Homogeneous Interests: If the largest family in the complex all share the same preferences, they could dominate every decision. This could lead to the complex’s rules and policies reflecting the interests of this one large family, even if they don’t align with what most other families want.
Disproportionate Power: Without the Electoral College, a few large families could form alliances and control the outcome of the vote. This might lead to decisions that favor their interests, leaving smaller families feeling disenfranchised and overlooked.
By using the Electoral College system, the apartment complex ensures that every apartment, regardless of size, has a meaningful say in the decision. It balances the influence of both large and small apartments, making sure that no single apartment can dominate the entire complex. This system creates a more equitable and representative decision-making process, much like in the US presidential elections.
With a pure popular vote, a large family could dominate control of the apartment building.
Loud Music!
Picture our apartment complex again. Say Apartment A has 15 family members, all of whom prefer loud music and late-night parties. If everyone voted directly, the votes from Apartment A would always outnumber those from smaller apartments, say Apartments B and C, which each have only 4 members who prefer quiet evenings and early bedtimes.
Every time there’s a vote on whether to allow loud music past 10 PM, Apartment A’s votes would dominate, ensuring their preference for loud music wins. This makes life pretty challenging for those in smaller apartments who want peace and quiet. Their voices are drowned out by the sheer number of votes from Apartment A. Without a system to balance this out, the apartment complex’s rules would disproportionately reflect the interests of the largest family, causing frustration and a sense of unfairness among the other residents.
Conclusion
This imbalance is what the Electoral College aims to prevent in the political system, ensuring that states of all sizes have a more equitable say in presidential elections. It helps prevent a handful of populous states from having disproportionate influence over the rest of the country.
Again, I’d recommend reading Tara Ross’ book. She also has an earlier book that is equally helpful in understanding the value of the Electoral College: “Enlightened Democracy: The Case For The Electoral College.” And of course, my book “The Art of the Comprise” builds on Ross’ work.
