The errors of definitions multiply themselves according as the reckoning proceeds; and lead men into absurdities, which at last they see but cannot avoid, without reckoning anew from the beginning.

John Samples of the Cato Institute wrote an article back in November ’00 that was also titled In Defense of the Electoral College. In it he writes:

James Madison’s famous Federalist No. 10 makes clear that the Founders fashioned a republic, not a pure democracy. To be sure, they knew that the consent of the governed was the ultimate basis of government, but the Founders denied that such consent could be reduced to simple majority or plurality rule. In fact, nothing could be more alien to the spirit of American constitutionalism than equating democracy will the direct, unrefined will of the people.

Recall the ways our constitution puts limits on any unchecked power, including the arbitrary will of the people. Power at the national level is divided among the three branches, each reflecting a different constituency. Power is divided yet again between the national government and the states. Madison noted that these twofold divisions -- the separation of powers and federalism -- provided a “double security” for the rights of the people.

Yeah, yeah… so we’re a republic, not a democracy. How is the EC a part of that? If the populace decides to vote for Hugo Chavez, Taylor Hicks or Tom Brady, how does the EC prevent that? This question is not rhetorical – I hope somebody will answer in the comments section below.

Back to Samples:

What about the democratic principle of one person, one vote? Isn’t that principle essential to our form of government? The Founders’ handiwork says otherwise. Neither the Senate, nor the Supreme Court, nor the president is elected on the basis of one person, one vote. That’s why a state like Montana, with 883,000 residents, gets the same number of Senators as California, with 33 million people. Consistency would require that if we abolish the Electoral College, we rid ourselves of the Senate as well. Are we ready to do that?

I believe this is the only legitimate defense of the EC that I have seen – and I have seen it in several places. I understand and agree. I am certainly no advocate of straight democracy, for reasons that should be obvious. Democracy is the first tool of socialists. Democracy is one of the worst protections of individual liberties. But it’s not as though the only alternative to the EC as is would be a direct national popular election. Is there no room for improvement?

Mr. Samples:

The Electoral College is a good antidote to the poison of regionalism because it forces presidential candidates to seek support throughout the nation. By making sure no state will be left behind, it provides a measure of coherence to our nation.

I’m not so sure about that. Some states clearly have unbalanced importance in the elections. They are called “swing states”. Who campaigns worth a damn in Wyoming? How much attention does Massachusetts get? As Jon Henke said in an email this week, the EC makes some states functionally ignorable, because it's just not worth campaigning for votes when it only changes "lose by 20" to "lose by 15". How does that help defend individual rights? How does it support the legitimate functions of government?

Mr. Samples:

Second, the Electoral College makes sure that the states count in presidential elections.

How? Again, this is not rhetorical.

I will now share some excerpts from an email exchange that occurred this week on the Atlancio email list. First, one from November 2004 that Rick forwarded this week:

Rick: Is there any rational reason for all states not at least splitting their electoral votes to reflect their popular votes?

Wulf: No. There is no rational reason. I am totally in opposition to the winner-take-all EC system.

Rick: As it is now, if 51% of a state's popular votes go to one candidate, all their electoral votes go to the winner, whether it's 3 electoral votes or 20. (I think there is one state who splits their electoral votes.) It just doesn't make sense to me.

Wulf: Maine and Nebraska can legally split their electoral votes, though I have read that they never do - for some reason they go winner-take-all as well. Another thing that is a problem with the system is that there are 21 states where electors are not legally required to vote for the candidate for whom they were selected. Since the founding of the Electoral College, 156 Electors have not cast their votes for the candidates they were designated to represent. WTF? It's never swung an election, but the potential for problems is HUGE, obvious, and as far as I can tell, pointless.

(a little related reading can be found in last August’s post Wasted Votes, which I suspect could be used against me in some way.)

Email from Rammage:

this is a debate that I respectfully welcome, as I think there's a lot to be learned here on both sides. However, the bottom line of this debate - and one that's empirical and incontrovertible, is that the electoral college has performed marvelously for over two (2) centuries. With all of the things that are currently broke in the system, and adhering to the old "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" adage, there's only one group of people who are generally in favor of altering the Constitution, and that's the group the also benefits from allowing felons to vote.

I did not address this at the time, but I don’t believe that to be true. Third parties would benefit from several of the possible alternatives to the EC as is. As Jib emailed,

The "winner take all" EC system actually discourages minority voices. It is too hard for a third party to get any EC votes at ALL... thus minimizing their political impact. If every state switched to a by-state proportional EC vote system, the third parties would all of a sudden get 10-20% of the EC votes.

The two major parties would take notice of that *very* quick and try
to assimilate the new ideas to win some of those votes back.

But I agree that the biggest hang-up in this debate may be one of motivation. Anybody who wants to change the EC is probably trying to change it to something that benefits them. Heck, I asked right out loud how the EC in its current state is benefiting me. Wariness is warranted, and the argument can be made that the EC ain’t broke. In fact, I’m almost willing to take that as axiomatic.

As Rammage said in a later email,

But this whole Electoral College Abolition movement has ruffled my feathers from the beginning. It really all comes down to motive. Why are there forces at work here trying to alter this system after working reasonably well for so long? Who benefits from this, and who loses? What consequences have we not fully hashed out yet? What sort of prescience did the Framers have in implementing this system? What did they write about it in the Federalist Papers?

To reiterate some of my own personal thoughts, I don't like the winner-take-all that goes on in each state, because I feel that it lowers voter participation and breeds a sense of detachment from the government. I honestly believe that breeds a sense of powerlessness in the face of government, which tends to authoritarianism and even shades of oligarchy.

Most people who "get involved" are people who want to spend more money on new projects. They are collectivists. The individualists don't even bother to vote, and therefore they don't matter one lick.

Some seem to think that the elimination of the winner-take-all system would disenfranchise rural voters, but I don't see how it would. In fact, it might highlight that the real divide in this country is not north-south, or east/west vs middle, or "red state" v "blue state", but largely rural mindset v urban. A rural voter in NY often has more in common with a rural voter in Virginia than either has with the urban voters in either state.

How is it bad to allow - nay, require - each elector vote as his/her district voted, instead of this winner-take-all system we currently have?

Again, I am not interested in a direct popular vote. But right now in each election, the focus is on a few swing states. There are states that are completely out of contention, as Jon mentioned and as I wrote in the article I sent. It would bring more meaning to those votes, instead of having Ohio and Florida really settle each election.

Rammage definitely took issue with some of my points, as seen in this email:

Rammage: Knowing the Framers wanted a buffer - like Cicci - between the population and POTUS, why does this surprise you that the Electors aren't legally bound to casting their vote for the elected candidate?

Wulf: I didn't say there should be a federal law requiring it. I said that there is a great potential for controversy/abuse in those states who do not require it. In fact, they are setting themselves up for a call for federal laws requiring it - Congress would try to step in and "do something" if an election were swung by it.

Rammage: Cheese and rice. Are you reading Utne again? None of the Electors should be legally bound!

Wulf: Um, why exactly? Who are they to decide anything for themselves? They aren't anybody special, i.e. they are not necessarily more qualified than the general populace. I don't see any reason to support a system that bothers to involve them at all. How does the current system serve that purpose of guaranteeing that the POTUS is not a just rube with a cult of personality? [glances at the last 2 presidents]

It's great in theory to remove the election from the general population, but I don't see that the EC in its current state (NPI) is able to serve the wishes represented by the following quotes:

- "A popular election in this case is radically vicious. The ignorance of the people would put it in the power of some one set of men dispersed through the Union, and acting in concert, to delude them into any appointment." -- Delegate Gerry, July 25, 1787

- "The extent of the country renders it impossible, that the people can have the requisite capacity to judge of the respective pretensions of the candidates." -- Delegate Mason, July 17, 1787

- "The people are uninformed, and would be misled by a few designing men." -- Delegate Gerry, July 19, 1787.

I don't see that the EC as it currently exists is necessarily serving the purposes you think it does - certainly not in the best possible way.

Rammage: If you are all about "The States," as I could have sworn you've pledged yourself to in the past, then why do you support stripping away the states' involvement in this?

Wulf: The states' involvement at this time is limited to making rules governing their electors. What else do they do? How does the winner-take-all EC system empower my state? Or me?

Concluding sentence: Somebody explain to me how the Electoral College in its current state (no pun intended) could be improved, or give me some concrete arguments for the winner-take-all system in each state. Please.