|
year after Bush v. Gore, the Senate has taken up legislation
that would allow the federal government to micromanage states' electoral
mechanics. As bad as this bill is, it falls short of what some people
suggested last year: doing away with the electoral college altogether.
If you want
a real constitutional crisis, scrap the electoral college and go
to the direct election of presidents.
Remember, the
Founding Fathers deliberated over many of the same contingencies
we're revisiting. They had escaped subservience to a monarch; had
experience with colonial, then state governments with their own
constitutions; and sought to remedy the flaws of the Articles of
Confederation.
The Founders
crafted a union whose constituent parts are sovereign states. Federalist
1 notes that the Constitution is "comprehending in its consequences
nothing less than the existence of the UNION, the safety and welfare
of the parts of which it is composed." Though some dismiss
states' rights and their role in the federal system, the fact remains
that states counterbalance the federal government.
Under the federal
system the Founders fashioned, states have a voice as states so
that they can check and balance the national government. The Constitution
constructs a central government which is strong enough, but limited
in scope. Civil government — at all levels — is limited
so that it won't unduly encroach on individual rights. States intervene
in order to safeguard the individual rights of their citizens.
States gained
a voice in presidential selection as states because "The State
governments may be regarded as constituent and essential parts of
the federal government; whilst the latter is nowise essential to
the operation or organization of the former" (Federalist 45).
The constitutional counterbalance would be radically upset without
the electoral college, thus leaving our rights less guarded.
Some will argue
that we've steadily marched toward direct democracy and away from
republican design. But that's all the more reason to preserve the
remaining components of the federated system. As a result of the
destruction of the states' checks and balances, the federal government
has steadily encroached on state jurisdiction — with impunity.
Also, the electoral
college moderates competing factions, which would certainly flourish
under a popular election scheme. At present, a simple majority of
voters — whether of a political party, a special interest,
or a few large states — cannot force its will on the nation.
That is, the electoral college protects minority rights.
The constitutional
majority of electors required from all the states promotes breadth
of support for the candidate who wins the presidency. Remember those
blue states on the electoral map? Hypothetically, seven states —
say, California, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey,
New York, and Rhode Island — could give a candidate the 50
million votes George W. Bush and Al Gore each won. But it would
be unfair to the nation if a popular majority from those states
alone could choose the president.
The Constitution
ensures presidential election by what Thomas Jefferson called a
reasonable majority. As a 1970 Senate Judiciary Committee report
noted, "The central character of American politics requires
that we be concerned not just with the size of the majorities, but
with their character." The report adds: "[O]nly those
majorities are entitled to rule which respect the rights of those
who do not agree with them."
The electoral
college fosters moderation and compromise. A candidate who could
win the presidency by popular election alone would look very different
from one chosen by a majority of all the states' electors. Not only
the winner, but all presidential candidates would look less like
Bush and Gore and more like Ralph Nader or Lyndon LaRouche.
The candidates
able to win the White House by a simple majority — or, more
likely, a plurality of the popular vote — would hold more extreme
positions on more divisive issues.
For comparison,
consider a typical House candidate and his state's U.S. Senate candidates.
While Senate candidates must attract broad support from the diversity
of the state's electorate, the more homogeneous House districts
are represented by such liberals as Maxine Waters and such conservatives
as Bob Barr.
The campaign
issues in a House race also reflect more localized, harder stances.
Presidential candidates, on the other hand, hold more moderate positions
on national issues. Thank the electoral-college system for this.
As the Senate
tempers the legislative impulses of the "people's house,"
so does the electoral college temper the extremes among the electorate.
George Washington was said to have remarked, "We pour legislation
into the senatorial saucer to cool it." The electoral college
serves the same purpose in the selection of presidents.
In our over
two hundred years' history, the four presidents who won by a majority
of the electoral vote while losing the popular vote each governed
legitimately. So did the several presidents who won office with
less than a majority of the popular vote. The electoral college
guaranteed that they would.
With direct
election of U.S. presidents, the nation would experience acrimony,
extremism, factionalism, endless recounts, a weakened president
elected by a plurality, and the loss of important protections of
minority rights. Every four years, we'd have a true constitutional
crisis. If you liked the Florida recounts, you'll love direct presidential
election.
|
