It is Time to Abolish the Electoral College

[AdSense-A]

By Nikki Slusher

In case you have not noticed let me fill you in on a little secret – the Supreme Court has been releasing decision after decision over the last couple of weeks that are not in line with President Trump’s expectations. Yes, I know. You are probably Susan Collins “shocked” by this news. I am sure he is too after Brett Kavanaugh has not been able to persuade the majority to give him his way. Wonder if he is asked for his $200,000 back? I digress…This week the Court ruled in a unanimous vote on “faithless electors” concluded that states may impose requirements on presidential electors to support the winner of the popular vote and may punish or replace those who chose not to. This decision comes just in time before this year’s Presidential election in November. Before I nosedive into why the Electoral College is outdated and needs to be replaced, I want you to fully understand how this process came to be.

The history of the Electoral College is as old as this nation. Since the establishment of our Constitution, it was implemented within Article II, Section 1 by our Founding Fathers as a trade-off between electing the President by Congressional vote and a popular vote of eligible citizens. Consisting of a total of 528 electors, a majority of at least 270 electoral votes are required to elect the President. Each state has the same number of electors as it has in its Congressional delegation: this means one for each member in the House of Representatives and an additional two for Senators.

There are minimal qualifications to be an elector. If they are not a current Senator, Representative, or a state and local official, then one may be appointed to this position. Electors are selected through party nomination or vote by the party’s central committee. This first portion of the process varies from state to state. Except for Nebraska and Maine, the second aspect of the process occurs during the general election when the voters cast their Presidential vote. There is no federal legislation or Constitutional provision that requires electors to cast their votes in accordance with the popular vote, however, some states do require their delegates to vote in line with the popular vote. Some even require pledges to ensure they will vote for the parties’ nominee.

Although it is extremely rare, there are penalties and fines that can be imposed upon “faithless electors”, including disqualification and replacement with a substitute. Throughout the 244 years of this nation’s history, over 99 percent of electors have voted as pledged. Only 180 out of 23,000 electors have ever fallen under this category. Want to guess when we last experienced “faithless electors?” Yes, that is right. It was the 2016 election. In the Court’s opinion this week, the majority noted the 2016 contest stating “only seven electors across the Nation cast faithless votes — the most in a century, but well short of the goal. Candidate Trump became President Trump.”

I’m sure many of you are thinking that is a low number, which it is, but I want you to also consider this – why are 538 individuals deciding who will lead a nation of 328.2 million after a large percentage of us cast our votes? The Court’s decision did not favor any political party, but it has opened the discussion on abolishing the Electoral College and replacing it with the popular vote.

First, let us look at the facts. In 2016 Donald Trump was elected as President by a 304 to 227 electoral win. Besides his claims of a landslide victory and it being “the biggest win since Ronald Reagan” the reality is it was not. In fact, it is the 13th weakest Electoral College in U.S. history. It is also the second time in the past five Presidential elections where the Republican candidate lost the popular vote but won due to the Electoral College. Even though he claims it was due to “illegal voters”, he also lost the popular vote to Hillary Clinton by over three million. Many GOP members claim that it is the “do nothing Democrats” up to their usual shenanigans for suggesting such an idea but have no fear I am here to refresh their short-term memory loss. In 2012, a Gallup poll taken showed 54 percent of Republicans in favor of switching to popular vote with that number only dropping to 19 percent after the 2016 election.

Another key factor to consider is the population disparity of the Electoral College. For example, Los Angeles County alone has a population greater than the population of almost 40 states. North Carolina, the 10th most populous state in the country, only has 500,000 more residents than L.A. County. It also has the same population as nine predominantly Republican states combined. Many Electoral College supporters claim popular vote would disadvantage the smaller states, the truth is they already are. The eight smallest states combined have the same population as the state of Wisconsin. There were 40 campaign events during the general election years of 2008, 2012, and 2016 in Wisconsin while none have been held in those states. Presidential candidates tend to ignore states that are considered predictable while focusing much of their attention on swing states. When looking at the 12 smallest non-battleground states, their combined population is almost the same as a notorious battleground state — Ohio. However, since it is one elector per House member and additional two for Senators these 12 states total 40 electoral votes while Ohio has less than half that amount.

These numbers make it clear – the Electoral College is an outdated winner-take-all system. The President’s mythical claims of the popular vote allowing cities to take over the country are simply unrealistic and untrue, although he isn’t exactly known for being a man of facts. The propaganda him and his supporters push against the popular vote is because of fear that he would lose. The American citizens are trusted to vote for their own local, state, and federal leaders directly. What makes the President any different? We are both a republic and a democracy. Both terms refer to a system of government where people directly elect their leaders. Justice Kagan ended the Court’s opinion referencing the preamble of the Constitution: “here, We the People rule.” The fact of the matter is we do not. If the Electoral College remains as the modus operandi for electing the most powerful position in this country, then “We the People” will never rule.

[si-contact-form form=’2′]