Position For The Abolishment Of The Electoral College

"The Electoral College Should Be Abolished"

A common misconception among many Americans is that when they vote, their vote directly elects the President. The truth is not nearly this simple. What, in fact, happens when a person votes is that their vote goes for an Elector. This Elector (who is selected by the respective state in which a vote is cast) casts ballots for two individuals, the President and the Vice-President. Each state has the same number of electors as there are Senate and House of Representative members for that State. When the voting has stopped, the candidate who receives the majority of the electoral votes for a state receives all the electoral votes for that state. All the votes are transmitted to Washington D.C. for tallying, and the candidate with the majority of the electoral votes wins the presidency. If no candidate receives a majority of the vote, the responsibility of selecting the next President falls upon the House of Representatives. This elaborate system of presidential selection is thought by many to be an 18th century anachronism (Hoxie 717), what it is in fact is the product of a two hundred year old debate over who should select the President and why.

In 1787, the Framers in their infinite wisdom saw the need to respect the principles of both Federalists and States Righters (Republicans) (Hoxie 717). A compromise was struck with prompt fashion between those who felt Congress should select the President and those who felt the states should have a say. In 1788, the Electoral College was indoctrinated and placed into operation. The College was to allow people have a say in who would lead them, but was also to protect against the general public's ignorance of politics. The argument was that the people, if left to their own devices, could be swayed by a few designing men to elect a king or demagogue (McManus 19). With the Electoral College in place, the people could make a screened decision about who the highest authority in the land was to be elected (Bailey & Shafritz 60); while at the same time put to rest the fear of the newly formed nation being destroyed by a demagogue or totalitarian government simply because men that had knowledge of politics would have the power of the overall deciding vote.

Two hundred years later the system is still designed to safeguard against the ignorant capacities of the general public. The Electoral College has remained relatively unchanged in form and function since 1787. This in itself poses a problem because in two hundred years the stakes have changed; yet the Electoral College has remained the same. A safeguard against a totalitarian overthrow may still be relevant, but the Electoral College as this safeguard has proved flawed in other capacities. These flaws have shed light on the many paths to a possibly undemocratic election.

Under the current processes of the Electoral College, when a member of the

general public casts a vote for a candidate he is in fact casting a vote for an Electoral College member who is an elector for that candidate. Bound only by tradition, this College member is expected to remain faithful to the candidate he has initially agreed to elect. This has not always happened. In past instances, Electoral College member have proved to be unfaithful. This unfaithful elector ignores the will of the general electorate and instead selects a candidate other than the one he was expected to elect (McGaughey 81). This unfaithfulness summarily subjugates all the votes for a candidate in a particular district. In all fairness, it is important to note that instances of unfaithful electors are few and far between, and in fact, 26 states have laws preventing against unfaithful electors (McGauhey 81). Despite this, the fact remains that the possibility of an unfaithful elector does exist and it exists because the system is designed to circumvent around the direct popular election of the President.

The problem posed by no one person receiving a majority of the electoral votes

(a tie) first came to head in the 1800 elections. The success of political parties served to turn Electoral College members into agents of the parties (Bailey & Shafritz 61). This so corrupted the 1800 elections that the Republican electors cast their two votes for the two Republican candidates, Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr respectively. It was assumed that Jefferson would be President and Burr the Vice-President. Unfortunately, there was no constitutional doctrine to affirm this assumption. As a result, Aaron Burr challenged the Jefferson election as President, and the issue had to be sent to the House of Representatives for resolution (Bailey & Shafritz 61). Any debating on the issue was only incidental; when all was said and done the issue was decided by one man, Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton and the Federalists were in control of the House when the decision was to be made. Hamilton, who disagreed with Jefferson but overwhelmingly distrusted Burr, orchestrated a blank ballot initiative among the Federalists, which allowed the Republicans to select Jefferson as President (Bailey & Shafritz 61). Though this entire

incident was significant the most noteworthy aspect was the fact that the President was essentially chosen by one man. The final decision was taken entirely out of the hands of the people and was left to the mercy of the biases (Burr and Hamilton were rivals until death) of a single individual. The 12th amendment was later formulated out of the Jefferson-Burr incident resolve the question of who the President and Vice-President should be in the event of a tie. The 12th amendment stipulates that electors are to cast separate votes for the President and Vice President, and basically that an event such as the Jefferson-Burr incident cannot happen again (Bailey & Shafritz 61). In effect, the 12th Amendment prevents the issue of a tie from going to the House under a very narrow scope of conditions. This is far less of a solution than one which would have prevented this issue from going to the House at all, because when the issue of who would be President went to the House in 1800, democracy was left in a compromise. This all serves to reveal yet another flaw of the Electoral College process.

In 1968 a three-way tie nearly brought to head the same undemocratic modes of presidential selections that emerged with the Jefferson-Burr incident. The 1968 elections race was extremely close. Richard Nixon barley received a majority of the electoral votes to win the presidency. The candidates in the race were Richard Nixon, Hubert Humphrey and George Wallace, respectively. If Nixon had failed to win a majority, Wallace would have been in a position to control whom the next President elected would be (Bailey & Shafritz