As we approach election night, we will likely hear calls from both sides to abolish the Electoral College. This would be a mistake. One key reason is that the Electoral College ensures a majority selection of the president over a plurality method. Consider that wiithout the Electoral College, Bill Clinton may never have been elected POTUS.
Introduction
In the labyrinth of American democracy, the Electoral College stands as a unique and often debated feature. This system, designed by the framers of the Constitution, plays a crucial role in ensuring that the President of the United States is chosen through a majority method rather than a plurality. Let’s delve into why this system is important and how it benefits the nation, using the 1992 presidential election as an example.
The Electoral College is a mechanism established by the United States Constitution for the indirect election of the president and vice president. Every four years, voters cast their ballots not directly for the candidates, but for a slate of electors pledged to those candidates. These electors then cast the official votes for the president and vice president. This system was crafted to balance the influence of populous and less populous states and to ensure that the president has broad support across the country.
Majority vs. Plurality
In a majority method, a candidate must secure more than half of the electoral votes to win the presidency. This is in contrast to a plurality method, where the candidate with the highest number of votes wins, even if they don’t have a majority. In a country as large as the United States, a majority is difficult to achieve, particularly in the first term election of a president.
The numbers are staggering. Only 24 of the 45 people elected to serve as POTUS have achieved a majority of the popular vote in their first term. Wow! Almost 50% did not! This list includes Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, John F. Kennedy, and Bill Clinton among others! By contrast, all won a majority of the Electoral College, which indicates a broad diverse majority of the republic.
Majority Method
The Electoral College requires a candidate to secure at least 270 out of 538 electoral votes to win the presidency. This majority requirement ensures that the president has broad support across a diverse array of states and regions. It helps to prevent a scenario where a candidate with only a small but passionate base could win the presidency with less than 50% of the vote.
In the 1992 election, Bill Clinton won the presidency with 370 electoral votes, securing a clear majority. This demonstrated broad national support, even though he received only 43% of the popular vote1. The Electoral College ensured that Clinton had widespread backing across the country.
Plurality Method
A plurality method, on the other hand, can lead to a candidate winning the presidency without broad national support. For instance, in a crowded field with multiple candidates, it’s possible for someone to win with a relatively small percentage of the total vote. This raises questions about the legitimacy and mandate of the winner. The Electoral College mitigates this by requiring a majority.
In 1992, Ross Perot, an independent candidate, received 18.9% of the popular vote. While this was a significant portion, it did not translate into any electoral votes, highlighting how the Electoral College prevents a candidate with only a plurality from winning the presidency.
Benefits of the Electoral College
Broad Coalition Building
The Electoral College encourages presidential candidates to build broad coalitions across diverse states. Rather than focusing solely on densely populated urban areas, candidates must appeal to a wide range of voters in various regions. This promotes a more inclusive and representative campaign strategy.
In 1992, Bill Clinton’s campaign strategy involved appealing to a wide range of voters across different states, which helped him secure the necessary electoral votes to win the presidency.
Protecting Federalism
The United States is a federal republic, meaning that power is shared between the national government and individual states. The Electoral College respects this structure by giving each state a voice in the election process. It ensures that states with smaller populations still have a significant role in choosing the president, preserving the balance of power between states.
Minority Interests
One of the strengths of the Electoral College is its ability to protect minority interests. Smaller states and regions that might otherwise be overlooked in a national popular vote system are given a voice. This encourages candidates to consider the needs and concerns of all Americans, not just those in the largest cities.
Criticisms and Counterarguments
Critics of the Electoral College often point out that it’s possible for a candidate to win the presidency without winning the popular vote, as has happened in several elections. They argue that this undermines the principle of “one person, one vote.”
However, supporters counter that the Electoral College ensures a president must have broad, diverse support across the country. They argue that without it, presidential candidates might focus only on large, urban areas, neglecting rural and less populous regions. The current system ensures that all parts of the country have a voice in the election.
A Brief Aside – Ranked Choice Voting (A Fallacy)
Ranked choice voting (RCV) could have significantly altered the outcome of the 1992 election. In RCV, voters rank candidates in order of preference. If no candidate wins a majority of first-preference votes, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and their votes are redistributed to the voters’ next preferences. This process continues until a candidate wins a majority.
In the 1992 election, Bill Clinton won with 43% of the popular vote, George H. W. Bush had 37%, and Ross Perot had 19%. Under RCV, Perot’s votes would have been redistributed to Clinton and Bush based on the second preferences of Perot’s voters.
Given that Perot’s supporters were likely to have diverse second preferences, it’s challenging to predict the exact outcome. However, some analyses suggest that Perot’s votes might have been split between Clinton and Bush, potentially giving Bush a better chance to win if he received a significant portion of Perot’s second-choice votes.
Ultimately, the exact outcome would depend on the distribution of second-choice preferences among Perot’s voters, but RCV could have made the race much closer and possibly changed the result.
Conclusion
The Electoral College is a fundamental aspect of the American presidential election system. By requiring a majority of electoral votes, it ensures that the president has broad national support, promotes coalition-building, respects the federal structure, and protects minority interests. While it has its critics, the Electoral College remains a vital component of the United States’ democratic process, ensuring that the president is chosen in a way that reflects the diverse and federal nature of the nation.
