The Electoral College Process Is Flawed: But the California Alternative Is Not the Answer
Joel S. Hirschhorn
September 09, 2006
I urge Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger NOT to sign AB 2948 that would ratify a specified interstate compact that requires the chief election official of each signatory state to appoint the slate of presidential electors that was nominated in association with the presidential ticket that received the largest national popular vote total. This compact would only become effective if states cumulatively possessing a majority of the total electoral votes have ratified the compact.
There are several things wrong with this solution. First, no matter what the presidential vote is in a compact state, that state’s electoral votes – ALL of them – is determined by what voters in OTHER states have decided. Let’s say a majority of California voters select the Democratic candidate for president, but enough other compact states toss the national popular vote towards the Republican candidate. Should California voters be pleased to ratify what a majority of voters in other states have decided? And the same question can be raised for any compact state. Does state sovereignty have any meaning? It is fine to say that a majority of the national popular vote should determine who becomes president. But is this the best way to do it? This approach could backfire, because citizens may not vote, simply on the basis that ultimately it is voters in OTHER states that can determine how their state’s electoral votes are used. This all smacks a little too much like some kind of citizen sacrifice.
A very different approach could produce the same desired result, but while maintaining state sovereignty. And it is not a new idea. In fact, it has already been adopted to a limited degree. Maine in 1969 and Nebraska in 1992 chose to allot two electoral votes to the statewide winner and the rest to the winner in each congressional district. Simply put, the popular vote in a state should determine, proportionately, how the state’s electoral votes are used. In other words, in contrast to today’s common practice of winner take all the electoral votes, proportionality of the state’s popular vote rules the day. Think about this for a minute. If all states use popular vote proportionality, then ultimately the result is a winner nationwide based on achieving a majority in the popular voting within states. With this approach, a person’s vote helps determine what fraction of the state’s electoral votes go to that voter’s preferred candidate. This sounds like a better, more democratic approach that respects state sovereignty.
So I have scratched my head, wondering why some politicians and special interests worked hard to get California AB 2948 passed. In looking at what various people have said about this approach I discovered virtually complete justification on the basis that the current winner take all system is terrible. IT IS TERRIBLE! But the better way to evaluate AB 2948 is to compare it to the alternative described above – proportionality based state electoral votes.
An editorial Riverside’s The Press-Enterprise made some important points. “In reality, the system that AB 2948 envisions would make elections less democratic. Had the proposed multi-state compact been in place in 2004, all 55 of the state's electoral votes would have gone to national popular-vote winner George W. Bush. Instead, nationwide, Bush claimed 286 and John Kerry collected 252, with California's votes going to Kerry -- a distribution that accurately reflected the state's preference. Californians should not sacrifice their independent voice to follow the whims of the rest of the country. The Electoral College is a vital part of America's constitutional framework. Californians would be shortsighted to throw that framework away.”
The Desert Sun pointed out: “Consider that if the bill had been law, our state's Electoral College delegates would have ignored California's popular vote in 1 of every 4 presidential elections since 1960. Voters would have been disregarded in 1960, 1976 and 2004 simply for going with the candidate that lost the national popular vote.”
The consensus seems to be that Democrats are the ones wanting what AB 2948 does to subvert the current use of the Electoral College. And that only makes sense if they think the larger urban populations could help toss the national popular vote in their favor. Maybe.
Instead of an interstate compact, that legally would have to be approved by Congress, the easier way to reform things is by states choosing to proportion their electoral votes according to their popular vote. And let me leave you with this annoying truth. Legally, state electors can choose to vote for whoever they want, totally disregarding what citizens have done. These are called “faithless electors.” There have been nine cases in the past 60 years, just a tiny percent, however, of some 30,000 electors.
There are several things wrong with this solution. First, no matter what the presidential vote is in a compact state, that state’s electoral votes – ALL of them – is determined by what voters in OTHER states have decided. Let’s say a majority of California voters select the Democratic candidate for president, but enough other compact states toss the national popular vote towards the Republican candidate. Should California voters be pleased to ratify what a majority of voters in other states have decided? And the same question can be raised for any compact state. Does state sovereignty have any meaning? It is fine to say that a majority of the national popular vote should determine who becomes president. But is this the best way to do it? This approach could backfire, because citizens may not vote, simply on the basis that ultimately it is voters in OTHER states that can determine how their state’s electoral votes are used. This all smacks a little too much like some kind of citizen sacrifice.
A very different approach could produce the same desired result, but while maintaining state sovereignty. And it is not a new idea. In fact, it has already been adopted to a limited degree. Maine in 1969 and Nebraska in 1992 chose to allot two electoral votes to the statewide winner and the rest to the winner in each congressional district. Simply put, the popular vote in a state should determine, proportionately, how the state’s electoral votes are used. In other words, in contrast to today’s common practice of winner take all the electoral votes, proportionality of the state’s popular vote rules the day. Think about this for a minute. If all states use popular vote proportionality, then ultimately the result is a winner nationwide based on achieving a majority in the popular voting within states. With this approach, a person’s vote helps determine what fraction of the state’s electoral votes go to that voter’s preferred candidate. This sounds like a better, more democratic approach that respects state sovereignty.
So I have scratched my head, wondering why some politicians and special interests worked hard to get California AB 2948 passed. In looking at what various people have said about this approach I discovered virtually complete justification on the basis that the current winner take all system is terrible. IT IS TERRIBLE! But the better way to evaluate AB 2948 is to compare it to the alternative described above – proportionality based state electoral votes.
An editorial Riverside’s The Press-Enterprise made some important points. “In reality, the system that AB 2948 envisions would make elections less democratic. Had the proposed multi-state compact been in place in 2004, all 55 of the state's electoral votes would have gone to national popular-vote winner George W. Bush. Instead, nationwide, Bush claimed 286 and John Kerry collected 252, with California's votes going to Kerry -- a distribution that accurately reflected the state's preference. Californians should not sacrifice their independent voice to follow the whims of the rest of the country. The Electoral College is a vital part of America's constitutional framework. Californians would be shortsighted to throw that framework away.”
The Desert Sun pointed out: “Consider that if the bill had been law, our state's Electoral College delegates would have ignored California's popular vote in 1 of every 4 presidential elections since 1960. Voters would have been disregarded in 1960, 1976 and 2004 simply for going with the candidate that lost the national popular vote.”
The consensus seems to be that Democrats are the ones wanting what AB 2948 does to subvert the current use of the Electoral College. And that only makes sense if they think the larger urban populations could help toss the national popular vote in their favor. Maybe.
Instead of an interstate compact, that legally would have to be approved by Congress, the easier way to reform things is by states choosing to proportion their electoral votes according to their popular vote. And let me leave you with this annoying truth. Legally, state electors can choose to vote for whoever they want, totally disregarding what citizens have done. These are called “faithless electors.” There have been nine cases in the past 60 years, just a tiny percent, however, of some 30,000 electors.
Print
Email
