Keep the Electoral College, Because States Matter

Pennsylvania electors cast their ballots at the State Capitol in Harrisburg, Pa., December 19, 2016. (Jonathan Ernst/Reuters)
They have unique geographic and political interests that ought to be reflected in the agenda of the nation’s executive.

On Thursday morning, Donald Trump unexpectedly joined his voice to the myriad of Democrats calling for the abolition of the Electoral College. In his freewheeling interview on Fox & Friends, Trump told his hosts: “I would rather have a popular election, but it’s a totally different campaign. If you’re a runner, you’re practicing for the hundred-yard dash as opposed to the mile. . . . To me, it’s much easier to win the popular vote.” That statement came as a surprise to many, given that it was the Electoral College that gave him a 304–227 electoral-vote victory over his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, in the 2016 presidential election, even though Clinton had won the popular vote by almost 3 million.

Now that Trump has come out against the College, perhaps it is possible to finally have a discussion of the College’s merits that doesn’t immediately devolve into political gamesmanship. Does the 230-year-old institution for electing presidents still have a place in modern America? The question is gaining in importance as more states consider joining the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact to impose a popular vote on presidential elections — a state-based workaround that does not require amending the Constitution.

It is worth recapping how exactly the Electoral College works. In the electoral system, Americans are actually voting for slates of electors who then go on to elect the president. Electors are apportioned by the sum of a state’s representatives and senators in Congress, reflecting their unequal population (representatives are proportional) and their equality as states (each state has two senators). The electors have previously committed themselves to one party or candidate, and all but two states allocate their electors by a “winner-take-all” system, giving whichever candidate polls higher all the electoral votes from that state.

The electoral system gives lower-population states a small bonus relative to their higher population counterparts — reflecting a belief that rural population interests should not always be overwhelmed by urban interests — but the main effect the College has is to force candidates to campaign to try to win states. .

This keeps states relevant in the raucous federal election system. Candidates must travel — Trump made over 100 campaign stops in the final ten weeks of the campaign — and target their messages to the unique interests of the states they visit. Pollsters survey voters on state issues. Media bring events in Bangor, Maine or Everett, Wash., to the rest of the country. We see candidates visiting local eateries and meeting with local entrepreneurs. Famously, Boston-bred millionaire John F. Kennedy while campaigning in West Virginia was troubled by the real poverty that he saw there, an experience that would shape his economic policy and outlook on American society.

The differences among states might not matter much for a chief executive whose only job was to conduct war, but the modern president oversees 24 cabinet-level departments whose activities have disparate influence depending on the situation of the states they affect.

Without the Electoral College, most campaigning would take place in major media centers such as New York City and Los Angeles. Speeches, polling, and reporting would focus — even more than they already do — on national issues, without consideration to how they affect particular states as states. It is little wonder Trump would prefer this “hundred-yard dash.” So would any other national celebrity eyeing a run for the oval office. States would literally be wiped off the presidential election map we are so accustomed to seeing every second Tuesday of November in a year divisible by four. And what we do not see or talk about, we tend to forget about.

Forgetting states would be problematic because states and their people have unique geographic and political interests that ought to be reflected in the agenda of the nation’s executive. As even liberal stalwart Franklin Roosevelt acknowledged, “the vastness of the [American] territory presented geographical and climatic differences which gave to the States wide differences in the nature of their industry, their agriculture and their commerce.” These differences might not matter much for a chief executive whose only job was to conduct war, but the modern president oversees 24 cabinet-level departments including Education, Labor, Interior, Transportation, and Health and Human Services, to name a few, whose activities have disparate influence depending on the situation of the states they affect.

Some contend that the College empowers only swing states. If you are not in Ohio, they say, your vote does not matter. But if there is anything the past few decades should have taught us it is that no state can be taken for granted. Gore couldn’t take his home state of Tennessee for granted in 2000, and Trump even had to send top surrogates to ruby-red Utah in 2016 to fend off challenges from serious third-party candidates.

Under a popular-vote system, what would fill the void left by the states? Probably more-intense identity politics, cults of personality, and negative campaigning designed to ratchet up fear and anger to turn out the base, without regard for local nuance. Donald Trump is right that a popular-vote system would make national campaigning easier for candidates like him — Oprah Winfrey and Dwayne Johnson don’t want to talk to local Wisconsinites at Miss Katie’s Diner or attend town halls in Sandown, N.H. Whether Trump would win without the Electoral College is another matter. That does not mean we should get rid of it.

Most Popular

PC Culture

Hate-Crime Hoaxes Reflect America’s Sickness

On January 29, tabloid news site TMZ broke the shocking story that Jussie Smollett, a gay black entertainer and progressive activist, had been viciously attacked in Chicago. Two racist white men had fractured his rib, poured bleach on him, and tied a noose around his neck. As they were leaving, they shouted ... Read More
Politics & Policy

The Strange Paradoxes of Our Age

Modern prophets often say one thing and do another. Worse, they often advocate in the abstract as a way of justifying their doing the opposite in the concrete. The result is that contemporary culture abounds with the inexplicable — mostly because modern progressivism makes all sorts of race, class, and ... Read More
PC Culture

Fake Newspeople

This week, the story of the Jussie Smollett hoax gripped the national media. The story, for those who missed it, went something like this: The Empire actor, who is both black and gay, stated that on a freezing January night in Chicago, in the middle of the polar vortex, he went to a local Subway store to buy a ... Read More

Ilhan Omar’s Big Lie

In a viral exchange at a congressional hearing last week, the new congresswoman from Minnesota, Ilhan Omar, who is quickly establishing herself as the most reprehensible member of the House Democratic freshman class despite stiff competition, launched into Elliott Abrams. She accused the former Reagan official ... Read More

White Progressives Are Polarizing America

To understand how far left (and how quickly) the Democratic party has moved, let’s cycle back a very short 20 years. If 1998 Bill Clinton ran in the Democratic primary today, he’d be instantaneously labeled a far-right bigot. His support for the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the Defense of Marriage Act, ... Read More

One Last Grift for Bernie Sanders

Bernie Sanders, the antique Brooklyn socialist who represents Vermont in the Senate, is not quite ready to retire to his lakeside dacha and so once again is running for the presidential nomination of a party to which he does not belong with an agenda about which he cannot be quite entirely ... Read More
PC Culture

Merciless Sympathy

Jussie Smollett’s phony hate-crime story could have been taken apart in 24 hours, except for one thing: Nobody wanted to be the first to call bullsh**. Who will bell the cat? Not the police, and I don’t blame them. Smollett is a vocal critic of President Donald Trump who checks two protected-category ... Read More