Is it time to get rid of the Electoral College?

In "Peculiar institution," Alexander Keyssar describes the nearly successful effort to get rid of the Electoral College in 1969-70 and suggests that its survival may owe more to the legacy of slavery, and the political power of the South, than to efforts by small states to preserve any mathematical advantage. After the experience of the 2000 election, and the prospect of a repeat this November, has the time finally come to abolish the Electoral College? Who stands to gain? Who to lose?
Read the story: Peculiar institution
Share your thoughts

Page 4

Prof. Keyssar's article points up an even more undemocratic aspect of the US Constitution than the Electoral College, one every bit as much a legacy of slavery. He describes how the US Senate blocked the abolition of the Electoral College in 1970. For much the same reason as we have the Electoral College, each State, not each citizen, has equal representation in the Senate. A resident of Wyoming has almost 70 times the voting power in the US Senate as does a resident of California, and infinitely more than a resident of the District of Columbia. The twenty smallest states in population, with barely 10% of the US total, have the 40 senators needed to prevent cloture. And those 40 are weighted 2/1 toward Repuplican red (14 of 20 went for Bush in 2000). If Senators' votes had been weighted by the populations they represented, Clarence Thomas would not sit on the Supreme Court and John Ashcroft would not be Attorney General. In this republic that so generally calls itself a democracy, the US Senate is the truly "Peculiar Institution."

Ed, Brookline

Okay, I just read all of the repsonses, and feel compelled to chime in a second time. First, we are all taught at a very young age, one person, one vote. But we are also taught that we vote for a block, and our state will back only one candidate based on it's majority, and for that reason, our individaul votes may, or may not count in presidential elections. That's just not democratic, and it's a contradiction. The majority rules, PERIOD. The presidency is one office. We all have representation in the house of Reps, and Senate.

Sam, Waltham

You know what's funny? Before the last presidential election, people were saying that it was a strong possiblity that Bush would win the popular vote but Gore would probably win the electoral vote. But, of course, the opposite occurred. Now, if it DID work out the first way, would all you liberal frauds in Cambridge and beyond be braying about overturning the electoral college? I didn't think so. What a bunch of hypocrites. Our founding fathers intended for the electoral college for the very reason why it works so well. It prevents candidates from getting elected by only appealing to metropolitan centers and large states. But, then again, the liberals have trashed 99% of what the founding fathers intended as it is so why not go after the last 1% I guess.

Dave, Taunton

Abolishing the Electoral College has been the typical rant of the uniformed for many years, especially since the last election. The Electoral College ensures a President that is voted in by a Constitutional Republic. The Founding Fathers never meant the country to be ruled by the mob -- which is what eliminating the College would be. The Electoral College ensures that the President is voted in by the representative government -- that everyone truly has a say, no matter where they happen to live in the country. Eliminating the College would create such a divide in the country, and such inequity that it would be tantamount to larceny of the republic by the mob.

Brian, Worcester

Yes, If we did not have it Mr. Bush would not be president, our fore fathers messed up on that one saying that the people could not be trusted to elect a president.

Paul, Palm Coast, Florida

Hey Mark from Cambridge, how about you teach your students about James Madison's Federalst papers? " Undemocratic vestige of the aristocratic past"? What we've got here is not a democracy but a constitutiunal republic. If the Founders had wished to create a pure democracy, they would have done so. Like Boston born Benjamin Franklin once said... "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch." If you want to do away with the power-sharing safeguard of the electoral college, why don't you vote for a constitutional amendment? It's almost humerous how shortsighted liberals try to persuade the masses if it weren't for the fact that they're actually weakening the republic as a whole.

Kevin, Quincy

For those respondents who seem to believe that NYC and LA will decide all the contests, let me ask you: "Who do YOU think should?' Florida? The votes are where the people are; at least that's how it works in a democracy, a system not so closely related to ours as most people would like to think. The problem with the Electoral College, in fact, is that 'electors', an additional layer of political hacks, actually hold the power of the vote for President, not those of us casting the ballots. And guess what? They don't HAVE to follow the popular poll; THEY decide who is President, not we, the voter. Is that the system you think of as 'democracy'? And by the way, riddle me this: Why is it that those in favor of this system seem to have such difficulty spelling?

Scott, Somerville

The Constitution states: Clause 2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. In that we are a representive government, Would you suggest that we have unlimited number of representatives?

Richard, Providence Forge

No. The electoral college is in place for a good reason. Without...If a State like California had 51 percent of the population, they could effectively silence the rest of the country. Smaller State would not be represented.

C, Waltham

What everyone misses in the concept of the Electoral College is NOT simply to give a weighted proportion to smaller states (though that is a side effect), but rather to give individual STATES the power to select the executive in the manner they see fit. In most states, it's a system of "winner takes all" where a simple majority to a particular candidate results in that candidate's party selecting all the state's electors. In Maine and Nebraska the system is different, where 2 electors are chosen by statewide popular vote and the rest chosen by popular vote in each congressional district). The point of emphasis here is that each state selects the manner in which they choose electors. Thus any discussion of eliminating the electoral college MUST take this issue into account. We can debate whether or not it is fair, and whether or not the Constitution could or should bear such a change, but I think it is beyond doubt that the founding fathers intended state governments to play a larger role in the government of the "United States" of America (witness the original method of selecting US senators). Frankly, I don't understand the hubbub of people who say it should go - only once in our nation's history has there been a president elected without the popular vote, which shows the electoral college system tracks very well with overall public sentiment - and it was only in the contentious election of our current president, which makes me wonder if these calls are little more than a politically motivated slap back at the system which failed to follow the wishes of overwhelming majorities.

Bryan, Boston