Why Republicans Should Support Electoral College Reform

Steve Brunton

Many Americans, it seems, were surprised to find in 2000 that presidential elections have never been simply a direct popular election. Many people scratched their heads and stroked their chins and tried to remember their old high school civics class discussion of the Electoral College and how it chooses presidents.

A few of these, i.e. Al Gore supporters, screamed about the unfairness of the Electoral College, and demanded reform. Demands typically suggested that the Constitution must be changed in order to turn the United States into a true democracy. The Constitution, however, does not have to be changed to change the Electoral College. A binding, popular vote could occur with no lengthy process to amend the Constitution.

Article Two of the U.S. Constitution clearly states the following:

“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress…”

Currently, we have a state-by-state popular election where each state assigns all of their electoral votes to the candidate who wins that state. That means that if a candidate wins California by one vote in 2004, then all of California’s 55 electoral votes go to the winner. That’s more than 20\% of the votes needed to win the presidency.

And that, no matter how loudly some on the left scream about the unfairness of the Electoral College, is why they will never seriously push Electoral College reform. While they complained about Florida, they really do not want California (or New York for that matter) to split their votes in presidential elections.

If they were serious about reform, all they have to do is read the Constitution to find that it does not mandate a state-by-state winner take all system. Each state legislature has decided upon that particular formula on their own. Each state legislature has the power to set up whatever system they want to assign their Electoral College votes. Technically, a state could assign their votes as a result of a game of checkers and not even hold a presidential election. Personally, I think a game of Twister to win the votes of Delaware would be the high point of any election season, and would draw live coverage from both CNN and ESPN.

Realistically, reformers would simply have to organize at the state level to get each state to change its system. This has been done before. In 1969, Maine changed how it selects its electors to allow them to reflect a divided popular vote. In 1991, Nebraska followed suite. Today, Maine and Nebraska are the only two states that can split their votes in the Electoral College.

If reformers really want reform, they could follow in the footsteps of Maine and Nebraska, and push for states to allow each congressional district to choose their elector’s vote. Another possibility would be to simply divide up the electoral votes to equal the popular vote percentages.

The next time some Democratic Party official or left-leaning pundit makes a peep about George W. Bush winning the presidency only because of the archaic, unfair vote in the Electoral College, some smart California Republican (Listen up, Governor Swartzenegger) should respond by initiating a reform campaign starting in California. Since California likes to think of itself as the place where trends start, the great political laboratory, an innovator in a nation of innovators, where in the nation would be more fitting? A presidential candidate could get only 40\% of the vote, a landslide loss by the way, and still get 22 electoral votes from the Golden State. A similar loss in New York would win another 12 electoral votes. Maine/Nebraska style reform in just these two states would mean that Pres. Bush could lose Florida and still win the general election.

If reformers really want reform, and if they take the time to read the Constitution, they could have reform. Unfortunately, wanting real reform and reading the Constitution are two things that are probably not on their mind.



Steve Brunton is a freelance writer and also works for a nonprofit organization that provides social services to immigrants and refugees in Chicago. He can be reached at stevebrunton@yahoo.com.