Beyond Minority Rule: Additional Problems, Solutions, and Red Herrings Associated with the Electoral College

As shown by the results of the presidential elections of 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000, the Electoral College creates the possibility that the American president will be elected against the popular will. This basic insult to democracy has not surprisingly led to many calls for reform of the Electoral College since its inception.

Some reform proposals have dealt with amending the Constitution. Under some estimates, over 700 amendments relating to the Electoral College have been introduced in Congress over the last 200 years, by far the most of any subject. Other reform proposals address the problems at the state level, focusing instead on the way that states allocate their electoral votes among the candidates. State level action is attractive to reformers because it does not require going through the lengthy amendment process. What almost all these proposals have in common is that they only tackle part of the problem, thereby ensuring that the solutions will partial at best.

The Problem of the Faithless Elector
In twenty-four states, electors are not bound by law to cast their vote in the Electoral College for the candidate for which they were selected. Even in those 26 states that bind their electors to the candidate for which they were selected, the constitutionality of enforcing those laws is unclear. Although it seems completely insane and arbitrary to most Americans, the will of the people may be completely ignored by the electors of the Electoral College.

The faithless elector problem is not a product of the imagination of those who would reform or abolish the Electoral College. In 2000, one of Al Gore's electors from the District of Columbia abstained to protest D.C.'s lack of representation in Congress. In 2004, one of George Bush's electors from West Virginia has announced his intention not to vote for Bush.

In response to this problem, people have suggested a constitutional amendment binding electors to the candidates whom they were elected to represent. While this may resolve the faithless elector problem, it does nothing to solve the larger problem of the possibility of minority rule. The best way to ensure that government reflects the will of the people is to make the electorate directly responsible for who gets elected to office.

The Winner-take-all System Discourages Voting in Stronghold States and the Colorado Amendment 36 Quick Fix
All the states except Maine and Nebraska use the winner-take-all method of allocating their electoral votes, whereby the winner of the state's popular vote, regardless of margin of victory, gets all the state's electoral votes, even if the winning candidate does not win a majority of the votes.

As a practical matter, this discourages citizens in those states that are a traditional stronghold of one of the parties from going to the polls. Because Democrats in New York and Republicans in Texas have such large advantage in numbers, it is highly unlikely that a Republican presidential candidate will win New York or that a Democratic presidential candidate will win Texas. Because of this improbability, voters tend to stay home on elections day because they think their preferred candidate is going to win or lose regardless of their vote.

Even though Colorado is not a stronghold state in 2004, an amendment on its ballot this election is one possible solution to this problem. Amendment 36 would allocate Colorado's nine electoral votes to the candidates roughly in proportion to the percentage of the popular vote which the candidates win. If the amendment passes, Coloradans of both parties will be encouraged to vote in the presidential elections even if the candidate of one party is significantly ahead.

However, even if all states were to adopt proportional representation in the Electoral College, it would still be possible for a candidate to get elected president with a minority of the popular vote. The better way to convince citizens that their vote counts is to make their vote count. Abolishing the Electoral College in favor of direct popular vote would ensure that every American's vote counts equally towards the election of the president.

What About Choosing Electors by Congressional District, like Maine and Nebraska?
The Electoral College also encourages presidential candidates to campaign in only a third of the states in this country. Because their states are traditional strongholds of one party or the other, citizens of California, Texas, New York, Georgia, and other states get less attention during presidential campaigns and have less influence over policy than the small number of swing states.

Although Maine and Nebraska do not pack the electoral clout of a California or Texas, the system they use is an option for those stronghold states which want to encourage the presidential candidates to pay them more attention. Maine and Nebraska each give two electoral votes to the overall winner of the popular vote in the state, and distribute the rest of their electoral votes to the winner of the presidential vote in each congressional district. This system is a step further away from accurately reflecting the popular will than Colorado's proposed Amendment 36, but were it adopted by all states, would go some ways towards encouraging presidential candidates to campaign in swing congressional districts across the country, instead of just in swing states. However, due to extreme gerrymandering of congressional districts, there are only about 30 competitive districts in the country, so this option might actually narrow the scope of presidential campaigns rather than expanding it.

The Electoral College Conflicts With Idea of Equality Found in the Declaration of Independence
Some have argued that because the Electoral College grants greater say in electing the President to some than to others, it is in conflict with the principles of equality among citizens found in the Declaration of Independence.

back to Electoral College main page