Misrepresentations of the Electoral College

In my last article on the electoral college “How the Electoral College Sustains Multiculturalism" https://medium.com/@william.judware/how-the-electoral-college-sustains-multiculturalism-9fb4c258309a I discussed the importance of the break down of electors and states so each culture has a voice in the presidential election. With this article I would like to look at some arguments that miss the point of the Electoral College and how the National Popular Vote(NPV) would remove the voice of the many cultures throughout the United States.

• “The Electoral College forces candidates to pay attention to all voters. They can’t just focus on a few big cities. They have to win entire states, and lots of ‘em” (Science Buzz, n.d.)

I don’t believe there is any system where a candidate could or should pay attention to every voter. It does however require a candidate to pay attention to the culture of many states which this statement reflects. I would consider this misleading because of the reality of swing states. Presidential candidates can still focus their campaign in just a few areas and come out as a winner withour paying attention to all voters. With the Electoral College however they wouldn’t be able to win with out understanding the culture of the states they don’t campaign hard in. Their message still has to reflect the culture of the states that are not swing states or there is the potential for them to become swing states. The swing states represent the states that are at a cultural divide and can switch depending on the current political climate.

Even with the national popular vote (NPV) format Candidates would focus on more populated areas. If you can swing 5% of voters in a populated area you would be further ahead than if you swayed 20% of the vote in a less populated area. NPV doesn’t fix the disparities it just moves them around.

• “It’s too complicated. A direct election is simpler—just count up all the votes across the country, and whoever gets the most, wins. It’s how we do every other election—why should voting for president be different?” (Science Buzz, n.d.)

The presidential election is not like any other election. Congressmen are voted on by their state, a majority of the vote from their state goes to them, not a majority in the country. House of representatives are voted on through a majority in the district, not the majority of the country or the state. The federal government is comprised of sovereign states. The house has members from different states, congress has members from each state and the president is elected by the voice of each state, not each individual.

• “The Electoral College Acts Against Direct Democracy” (Pope, Fresh U, 2016)

Not necessarily a misrepresentation. The electoral college does act against a direct Democracy. At the same time the current national popular vote (NPV) proposal wouldn’t be called a direct Democracy either. A direct Democracy would have the population vote directly on all issues including legislation. We are a constitutional Republic which votes representatives to decide on things for us. Even with the NPV for president it wouldn’t make us a direct Democracy. To establish a direct democracy any bill proposed by the house would be voted on by a NPV.

“It has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity.” Alexander Hamilton (1850). “The works of Alexander Hamilton; compris. his corresp. and his polit. and official writings, excl. of the federalist, civil and military. Ed. by John C. Hamilton”, p.440

“Pure democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” – James Madison, Federalist 10, 1787

• “Electors are Unfairly Chosen by Their States” (Pope, Fresh U, 2016)

Electors are chosen to represent party or bureaucratic interests and do not work as agents of the state legislature. Between 1999 and 2012, 99% of electors kept their pledges to a single presidential candidate and were not swayed by popular interests. Due to the establishment of the "winner-take-all" system, electors rarely act independently of their political parties' interests. (Pope, 2016)

I believe this is a misrepresentation of the process of the electoral college. The voting that happens in the states are to vote on a representative for the electorate. Holding one election and tallying the votes to decide what most of the state wants. If a majority of the state votes for a democratic elector, they get democratic representatives which vote for the democratic candidate based on the will of the majority. This is regradless of wether they have a republican governor or a majority republican legislature. The people still pick the electorate and sway them with the popular interests of their state which is where they are chosen from. I find this important becuase federal government has different powers and responsibilities. Someone might agree with one party on a state level but agree with another party on their national policies.

I find it fascinating they admonish the “winner-take-all” method of voting for electors in a state election but praise the “winner-take-all” method for the NPV. Where the winner would literally take all the states regardless of lossing in the state if more states vote for it. Which gives the majority cultures a way to supress the minority cultures voices in a federal election.

The fact that we have had only a few “faithless” electors is a sign that the current system of selecting candidates is working. The constitution gave the power to vote how they want to the electors as a check on the majority. The fact they haven’t need a check is a good sign.

On a side note with the current social media environment creating echo chambers and ativist groups suppressing negative information about the parties and proping up positive information, well informed electors may be more important than ever before.

• “Voters Would Believe Their Decision Matters” (Pope, Fresh U, 2016)

If someone thinks their vote doesn’t matter, it’s because they don’t understand the system and what they are voting for. When you vote under the electoral college system, you are representing the voice of your state and the direction your state should go in. This is important because what would a voter in Wisconsin know about the needs of New Mexico and vice versa. Also, a person’s vote has more weight in the state elections that could sway the entire state. Even in the large states each vote will have more weight than they would in a national popular vote.

I am not arguing the electoral gives each voter across the country an equal voice, but that under this system each individual voter has the potential to influence a larger percentage of the vote for president. Dale R. Duran wrote an excellent article on the breakdown of voter weight for each state in the 2016 presidential election titled Whose votes count the least in the Electoral College? https://theconversation.com/whose-votes-count-the-least-in-the-electoral-college-74280

According to United States election project http://www.electproject.org/2016g about 136 million people voted in the 2016 election. With this number under the national popular vote (NPV) each voter would have a .0000007% chance to affect .0000007% of the NPV. Under the electoral college in Florida they had about 9,400,000 voters choosing the direction of the 29 electoral college votes allotted to the state. So, Florida voters with the lowest voter weight according to Dale Duran would have a 0.00001% chance to affect 5.39% of the electoral college vote. Wyoming had about 255,000 voters choosing the direction of 3 electoral college votes allotted to their state. So, Wyoming which has the highest voter weight has a 0.0003% chance to affect 0.5% of the electoral college vote.

It May not be perfectly balanced and fair across the board, but each individual does have the ability to affect more of the outcome under the electoral college than under the NPV.

These are just a few I came across that I felt dealt directly with sustaining multiculturalism. I look forward to continuing this discussion and any thoughts and ideas are welcome.