Some years ago, the late Molly Ivins wrote a column titled, “In
Support for Democracy.” In it she put forth the tired idea of eliminating the
Electoral College, “a toxic piffle.” in her words, to defend American
democracy. I took issue with it then, and I take issue with it now as other
voices sound off against our electoral process. First, the Electoral College is
a thoughtful methodology developed by our nation’s forefathers to protect the
rights of voters in sparsely populated states. For two centuries, the heavily
populated districts have conspired to dominate and suppress the vote of states
with less congestion. Simply, the metropolitan electorate does not trust nor
value the heartland electorate, leading to the second point—America is not a
democracy.
Okay, it is, but in the form of a representative republic.
The last pure democracies were in the Greek city-states. But in pursuit of
“democracy” Ms. Ivins’ argument, like those still carrying that idea, was based
on the idea of giving small states a voice in national elections using the
popular vote. Ah, but there’s the rub. In a national popular vote, small
communities would never have a voice. The major metropolitan centers would be
the deciders of every election due to sheer mass in population. That is the
reason for the Electoral College: to provide balance and fairness in national
elections. If we relied on raw numbers for presidential elections, then a
mummified FDR would still sit in office.
Arguments persist that campaigning in non-swing states is
minimal at present. Go ahead and eliminate the Electoral College, then watch
the money and focus really shift solely to the big cities and states on the
East and West coasts. New York City, for instance, has more than 8.5 million
citizens, which is about a third the population of Texas (27 million),
equivalent to twice the combined populations of Colorado (5-million) and Iowa
(3-million), and more than ten times the entire state population of South
Dakota (853,000). The state population for New York is over 19-million people. Combined
with a California population of almost 39-million, those two states alone
account for almost 20 percent of the national vote. Just two states equivalent
to one-sixth the national population!
Get the picture yet?
Without the checks and balances in our electoral process,
states such as Iowa and South Dakota would never see their votes have an
impact. Their voices and issues would never be heard or raised. The heavy-metro
states would forever hoard the national debate. Even now, how much attention is
given to the fly-over states? Only during elections do the opinions of the
Midwest, South and Southwest matter. Without the Electoral College, those
voices could never be heard.
Beyond that, the anti-Electoral College contingent complains
that congressional re-elections have created “lifelong positions.” They are dead right on that single point, which is supported by the presence of the long-since-ripened Congressmen John
Conyers and Charles Rangel, or Thad Cochran and Don Young.
That aside, it often appears that when a Republican threatens to win an election,
there are those who want to dispense with the Electoral College and go strictly
with the popular vote. That opinion always shifts when it’s a Democratic
candidate ahead in the polls or in the Oval Office. Certainly the cries against
the electoral procedures were silent in 1993 when Bill Clinton sneaked into
office with a mere plurality rather than a majority of the popular vote. For Clinton supporters, Electoral College certainly served its function then.
To some, the Electoral College represents a “nightmare
scenario.” Why is understandable. Representative government stands firmly in
the path of any one political concern’s desire to dominate the national
government. That’s frustrating for people who are convinced they know what’s
good for other people. Thank God and thank the founding fathers for keeping the
electoral playing field at least a little more level so that neither
position ever fully rules.
