The Electoral College: Democracy Denied

The Electoral College method of electing the President of the United States is a travesty. Three times in the nation's history the candidate who did not get the most votes has been declared the winner. This is a blatant denial of democracy itself. The Electoral College should be abolished. It could be replaced either by simple popular vote, a second round of voting or by an instant runoff voting (IRV) plan.


An Electoral College system was set up at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 for two main reasons. First, the delegates did not trust the common people to make so important a choice. Indeed, only members of the House of Representatives were to be elected directly by the citizens. Senators and Presidential Electors were chosen by majority vote of the most numerous house of the state legislature, usually called the State Assembly. Second, the Constitution was a bundle of compromises between the thirteen states, each pushing its own specific interest. In order to secure the support of the smaller states, the larger states had to agree to a system that exaggerated the power of the small states in the national election process and kept the decision in the hands of the politicians rather than the voters themselves. This antidemocratic element of our election process is not something to be hallowed; it was simply a crass political bargain in the service of an elitist view of the citizenry.


In 1824, 1876 and 2000 the will of the majority of the American people was thwarted by this unjust system. Andrew Jackson was denied in 1824 in an election that was ultimately decided in the House of Representatives, though he was able to avenge his defeat and unseat John Quincy Adams four years later. Rutherford Hayes won the Electoral Vote over Samuel Tilden in 1876 despite losing by 3% in the popular vote in a chain of events that saw the votes of three states challenged and awarded as part of a backroom deal. (Look up the "Compromise of 1877" for more details about this.) Finally, George W. Bush took the Electoral vote 271-267 over Al Gore amid the famous "hanging chad" controversy and recounts in Florida that were ultimately halted by the Supreme Court. Gore won the popular vote by some 550,000 that year.

Apologists for the Electoral College like to say it makes the candidates pay attention to rural areas or smaller states that would otherwise be ignored. But that's not what it does. It makes them pay attention to states that have close races, regardless of their other characteristics. Republicans ignore the vast rural areas of California and the million votes they could pick up there because the Electoral College vote is winner take all. The Golden State is overwhelmingly Democratic and they would lose the statewide vote anyway. Similarly, Democrats ignore the big urban areas of Texas and the million votes they could gain there because the Lone Star State is so decisively Republican they would still fail to carry it. Instead of trying to pick up millions of such votes in one-sided states they spare no effort and expense to get out 10,000 votes in hotly contested Wisconsin, change 5,000 minds in nip and tuck New Mexico or 3,000 in competitive Delaware. Neither side pays much attention to campaigning in or addressing the issues of any state of the Republican South and Great Plains or most states of the Democratic Northeast or Pacific Coast. What a perversion of democracy it is that 3,000 votes in one place are considered more important than one million in another.

The simplest way to correct the problem would be to declare the winner to be whoever gets the most nationwide votes. We decide our other elections in America that way; why not for the most important election of all? Some object on the grounds that leaders can be elected by only a plurality but without the majority of the votes this way. In multiple-candidate races this has happened several times. Abraham Lincoln in 1860, Woodrow Wilson in 1912 and Bill Clinton in 1992 are three prominent examples. If this is a problem a better way might be to ensure that the national leader begins with the support of at least a majority of the people.

One way to make certain a president has been chosen by the majority is to have a second round "runoff" election. We do this in some states in local and primary elections and France does this in its presidential election. Candidates who finish third or worse are eliminated from the ballot in the runoff. The top two vote-getters square off, usually shortly after the initial contest. This allows people to indicate their support for minor candidates in the general election and then vote between the two most nationally popular ones in the final round. In 2000, for instance, liberals could have voted for Nader and conservatives for Buchanan in the first round and then gravitated to Gore and Bush respectively in the runoff. This method can work but instant runoff voting (IRV) is a better option.

In Instant Runoff Voting the voter marks a first, second, third, and so on choice for an office. If there were four candidates running and no one got a majority, the candidate who finished fourth would be eliminated and his or her voters' second choices would count instead. If neither of the top two yet had a majority the number three finisher would be eliminated and his or her second (or third, if necessary) picks would count, along with those of the already eliminated number four finisher. In this way IRV will determine a majority based on ranked preferences. This system is in use for some elections in Britain, Canada, Australia and San Francisco. You might also see it referred to as rank order, preference voting, or other names. It allows people to vote for minor candidates and still register a preference between the major contenders if their choice finishes down the list. It also saves the time and expense or holding a second round of elections. I like the idea and would like to see it adopted, but any of the three plans mentioned is a huge improvement over the current unjust procedure.

Which ever way is chosen, the overriding priority is to get rid of the undemocratic Electoral College system. Because the practice is part of the Constitution it requires a constitutional amendment to change it. That would need to originate in the Congress and then move to the states for ratification. It's a long and difficult process, but worth it. Let's hope we have seen the last time that the American people's choice for president does not become president.