{"id":5524,"date":"2016-09-17T09:49:42","date_gmt":"2016-09-17T13:49:42","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.trinitydc.edu\/president\/?p=5524"},"modified":"2016-09-17T14:14:50","modified_gmt":"2016-09-17T18:14:50","slug":"constitution-day-electoral-college-edition","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.trinitydc.edu\/president\/2016\/09\/constitution-day-electoral-college-edition\/","title":{"rendered":"Constitution Day: Electoral College Edition!"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"election-map-viewed-by-candidates\"<\/a>(photo credit<\/a>)<\/p>\n

Each year on September 17, federal law requires schools, colleges and universities to observe Constitution Day.\u00a0 Over the years, we have done this at Trinity by posing questions about the Constitution and soliciting community opinions for public inclusion on this blog.\u00a0 This year’s question:\u00a0 Should we amend the U.S. Constitution to abolish the Electoral College?\u00a0 Why or Why not?\u00a0 <\/strong><\/p>\n

We took a straw poll of the Trinity community and these are the results:<\/p>\n

\"electoral-college-straw-poll\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Below are some well-formulated arguments Pro and Con abolishing the Electoral College:<\/p>\n

From Dr. Dennis Farley, Economics<\/h3><\/span>\n

Proposals to eliminate the Electoral College come up from time to time.\u00a0 So far, our republic has been lucky enough to dodge them.\u00a0 The framers of the Constitution wanted a republican form of government, but they had a healthy distrust of the people at large as decision makers for the nation.\u00a0 The whole thrust of the Bill of Rights, for example, was to limit the power of a majority to dictate the rights of individuals or groups in the minority.\u00a0 The method of selecting the chief executive, in Article 2, Section 1, was similarly influenced by a suspicion that direct election might not produce very good results.<\/em><\/p>\n

There are two reasons I see why the Electoral College, arcane though it may be, is worth retaining.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. The Electoral College is a potential bulwark against the election of someone truly not fit to be President.<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Hamilton (in Federalist, No. 68) thought that the mere existence of the Electoral College would assure that scam artists and criminals would not be able to make it through the process.\u00a0 The people would express their preferences by voting, but States would then appoint electors.\u00a0 These electors would give the preferences of the people great weight but would then use their good judgment in casting their votes.\u00a0 Direct election would have no such filter to prevent a popular scoundrel from coming out on top.\u00a0 Our impending election suggests that Hamilton may have been too optimistic.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

    It may seem a low probability event, but suppose that, after the popular vote in November but before the College would meet in December, a candidate for President were revealed to be a serial murderer.\u00a0 In such a case, the electors would be able to vote for someone else, since they are free to vote their consciences, regardless of any pledges made during the popular vote.<\/em><\/p>\n

    One can argue that impeachment is the remedy for such a situation, but impeachment is a long and costly process.\u00a0 In the meantime, do you want the serial murderer to be making decisions?<\/em><\/p>\n

      \n
    1. The Electoral College maintains a winner-take-all structure for the popular vote State by State.<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      States are free to set up the rules for how electors are appointed.\u00a0 Most States have chosen to appoint all the electors associated with the candidate who gets the most votes in that State.\u00a0 Thus, each State contest is basically winner take all.\u00a0 (Maine and Nebraska do this by Congressional district, with adjustments for Statewide results).<\/em><\/p>\n

      This is a good thing.\u00a0 It maintains the perception that presidential winners are favored by a majority of the people.\u00a0 Most of the time the winner of the popular vote also wins the most electoral votes.\u00a0 Anomalies like Gore vs. Bush in 2000 are rare.<\/em><\/p>\n

      \u201cWinner take all\u201d also prevents the further fragmentation of our body politic.\u00a0 Imagine for a moment what proportional allocation of electors, or direct election via the popular vote, would mean for future elections.\u00a0 Knowing that one could get achieve notoriety on a national stage by capturing a few percent of the popular vote, splinter parties would proliferate.\u00a0 There might never again be a majority President.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

      Sorry to be so long-winded, but I have some strong views on this question.\u00a0 The Electoral College should be retained.\u00a0 You may view it as an outdated block on the will of the people.\u00a0 I view it as a potential safeguard to the republic\u2019s very existence.\u00a0 And, in fact, most of the time the will of the people will be reflected in the Electoral College result.<\/em><\/p>\n

      At a time when the major parties\u2019 methods for selecting candidates have broken down (the system of primaries is to blame here), I am loath to even discuss eliminating a safeguard that could protect us from a real disaster.<\/em><\/p>\n

      From Martha Molina, Assistant Director of Financial Aid:<\/strong><\/h3><\/span>\n

      Yes.\u00a0 I believe that we should amend the U.S. Constitution to abolish the Electoral College because I believe that the people should elect the new president not a handful of states.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

      I am basing this assertion on the following: \u00a0The truth is that all people that are elected to higher offices cannot do it with the help of certain groups of people that can influence other voters as well.\u00a0 This doesn\u2019t mean that these candidates are not honest or do not have good character (although some can\u2019t disguised who they really are).\u00a0 It\u2019s just a fact that you need votes in your favor to win and a good campaign strategy (as in any strategy) is to get people to think that your ideas are better than your opponent. People will always think \u201cwhat\u2019s in it for me?\u201d\u00a0 Therefore, for a candidate to win the support of the people or groups he\/she desires, the candidate must demonstrate (usually by official\/unofficial\/subtle\/inferred promises) that he\/she is the candidate that will make the elector\u2019s desire come true.\u00a0 \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

      What does this have to do with the Electoral College?\u00a0 A lot! Because the candidates will campaign and try to seek the favor of the states that will bring them the most electoral votes. I believe that the responsibility has to be with the people as a whole, not with some states.\u00a0 For example, we have candidate X and Y.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

      If a state \u201cA\u201d has a population of 10 million and 10 electoral votes and state \u201cB\u201d has a population 6 million and 6 electoral votes. Let\u2019s say that only 3 million people vote from state A (1.7 million for \u201cX\u201d and 1.3 million for \u201cY\u201d) so state \u201cA\u201d declares X the winner.\u00a0 Now for state \u201cB\u201d, let\u2019s say that 5 million people vote (1 million for \u201cX\u201d and 4 million for \u201cY\u201d).\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

      If we total these numbers, candidate \u201cX\u201d will win 10 Electoral College votes<\/u> with 2.7 million votes in his favor while candidate \u201cY\u201d will lose since he only would have 6 Electoral College votes<\/u> even though he won the population vote with 5.3 million votes \u2013which almost double the number of votes for candidate \u201cX\u201d.\u00a0\u00a0 To me this is not democracy; democracy is the will of the people.\u00a0 If this were to be a race between 2 states, then the winner clearly would not be the people that took the time to cast their votes to elect the best person to represent them.\u00a0 There\u2019s always going to be a good argument for each side; however if the question is does the Electoral College represents \u201cWe, the people\u201d, then the answer is a resounding \u201cNo!\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

      From Dr. Carlota Ocampo, Trinity’s Provost:<\/strong><\/h3><\/span>\n

      I am not a political scientist, but I have grasped an important foundational principle of our American system:\u00a0 checks and balances.\u00a0 I appreciate checks and balances as an added layer of protections that shore up our democratic processes, and make what could be a fragile system, strong.<\/em><\/p>\n

      The electoral college is a good example of checks and balances.\u00a0 Though three of the four Presidents who lost the popular vote but won the electoral were Republicans (the fourth being John Adams, our Federalist second President) I do not see this as a partisan issue.\u00a0 I agree with Jason Brennan, the author of \u201cOpinion: The Electoral College is anti-democratic\u2014and that\u2019s a good thing\u201d which you posted below (2016:\u00a0 http:\/\/www.marketwatch.com\/story\/the-electoral-college-is-anti-democraticand-thats-a-good-thing-2016-09-12<\/a>) that \u201c[America\u2019s founders] worried that democratic polities were prone to fits of passion<\/strong>. They might be overcome by prejudice and swayed by populist demagogues<\/strong> \u2026 a series of checks and balances and a multistep process [could] slow down the decision-making process with the hope that cool heads will prevail<\/strong>.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

      The hope that cool heads will prevail!\u00a0 We have seen, in this election, the danger of demagoguery and the chaos of hot-headedness.\u00a0 Psychology (and history) tells us that group behavior can supercede individual critical thinking when emotions run high.\u00a0 Group decisions are often poorer than those each member might make individually and outside of the group\u2019s influence.\u00a0 Hitler\u2019s rise to leadership was the result of democratic processes, after all, Brennan reminds.\u00a0 The irony here is that a departure from the pure democracy of a popular vote \u2013 the electoral college \u2013 actually enhances our ability to enjoy the benefits of that democracy.<\/em><\/p>\n

      In endorsing the electoral college, I realize that MY candidate may lose the popular vote and win the Presidency (in fact, this has happened!).\u00a0 And yes, I was sore.\u00a0 But the ultimate winner is the continuation of the American experiment \u2013 an experiment which, so far, has produced a strong and stable life for many of the world\u2019s citizens.<\/em><\/p>\n

      My vote:\u00a0 for the electoral college!<\/em><\/p>\n

      And for extra credit, in refusing to hear the Garland nomination, the Senate is not only failing to uphold its sworn duty, it is engaging in exactly the kind of hot-headed political machinations that makes checks and balances necessary.\u00a0 The Senate is proving my point.<\/em><\/p>\n

      Additional Comments from the Straw Poll<\/h3><\/span>\n