The Electoral College is not a “fence”
I have frequently argued that the Electoral College (EC) makes disputed elections far more likely, and a new study (or “model” if you insist) shows this to be the case. And not just slightly more likely, this sort of electoral fiasco is 40 times more likely to occur under the EC.
For a certain type of intellectual, it’s fashionable to take the contrarian stand on the EC and argue that it is actually a good system. They often rely on “Chesterton fence”-type arguments. The framers must have had good reason to put this system in place.
But the Chesterton fence argument is actually not very relevant to this issue. Other countries generally elect their president by majority vote (although a few “ceremonial” presidents are picked by an EC, as in India). So if you plan to a rely on an argument that, “for some mysterious reason real world societies have adopted the EC, despite the fact that it seems undemocratic”, you will lose. Almost all real world societies have done the opposite.
Then you might argue, “But the US is a special place, and the EC fits our unique situation.” But again, that’s a losing argument. The US in 2020 is much more like France in 2020 than it is like the US in 1787. Back then, the US was a collection of loosely attached states that were viewed as semi-autonomous. There was a small and weak central government. We were largely rural. There was slavery, and a debate over how slaves should impact a state’s political weight. (The EC had the effect of boosting the power of slaveowners, as slaves could not vote.) Communication between the states was difficult. A reliable national vote count would have been logistically difficult.
Both modern America and modern France have a huge national government. They are highly urban societies and do not have slavery. There is instant communication and we have the technology to conduct national elections. We are nothing like the America of 1787. The only reason we still have the EC is that our Constitution is very hard to amend, particularly when the amendment would reduce the power of smaller states.
Suppose the Framers had decided that each county would have one electoral vote. Would you still assume that the framers knew best? Would you be OK with a remote west Texas county of 169 people having the same influence as LA county’s 10 million? If not, why assume the current system is appropriate, just because the framers set it up that way under radically different conditions?
Yes, the Constitution says there shall be an Electoral College. The Constitution also says that a future Democratic administration can make 5 more states out of tiny Pacific Islands. Or NYC can be turned into 5 states. I don’t want that. That’s banana republicanism.
I’m not in favor of frequently amending the Constitution, but an amendment getting rid of the EC seems long overdue.
The EC caused the election fiasco of 2000, and some day it will cause another (and perhaps more violent) fiasco. It’s useless, undemocratic and destabilizing. Get rid of it.
Update: Here are 14 short essays by critics of “Critical Social Justice” who oppose Trump. Recommended.
Tags:
28. October 2020 at 13:11
Posts like these are why I keep coming back to your blog despite disagreeing with much of it (I’m a socialist after all!). This is a better summary than I’ve seen elsewhere – logical and coherent. Keep it up! 🙂
28. October 2020 at 13:11
Excellent analysis…and the best example of how important states were initially in America is the Civil War in which the rebellion went state by state and distinguished federal military officers and federal judges quit the federal government and remained loyal to their respective states. So I think a big reason of their allegiance to their respective states was the importance of owning land and obviously land can’t be moved around like money.
28. October 2020 at 13:20
The electoral college requires a ruling coalition to appeal to more than just a majority to ‘get stuff done’ (to control all branches of government). Absent the electoral college, two of the three pillars of the federal government would be majoritarian in nature and we’d most likely have a more activist government.
I also think that for small states, constitutional acknowledgement of right of succession is a fair asking price. Put them in the same amendment and I’d support it.
28. October 2020 at 13:21
“40 times more likely to occur under the EC.” But still quite unlikely; and very seldom, even when the election is “disputed” in the authors’ sense, will there be any actual challenge (as there was in 2000).
28. October 2020 at 13:32
Thanks everyone.
Philo, Imagine how chaotic the 2000 election would be today, now that America had become a banana republic. Trump would do literally ANYTHING . . .
28. October 2020 at 13:36
While it is true that most other countries elect their Heads of State through majority vote (if they elect them — even many democracies do not), most countries elect their Heads of Government indirectly through a Parliament.
The US combines the two positions so it’s not clear which one is the right comparison.
28. October 2020 at 13:51
Richard Epstein has a pretty solid episode on the Electoral College as part of The Libtertarian Podcast. Only 20 minutes long, and provides both historical context, and his views on the current issues.
https://www.hoover.org/research/libertarian-electoral-college-and-republican-sensibility
28. October 2020 at 13:54
You have to make a significant change in how elections are conducted to make it work: probably the franchise will have to be set by the federal government rather than by the states, and the feds will have to play a bigger rule in ensuring fair count.
28. October 2020 at 14:36
One of the primary reasons for the structure of government (republic) and the constitution Is to protect unequal outcomes In a free and law abiding society. In other words , those in the minority and with innate talents ( for example businessmen and wealth creation) Have the natural right to rise above (and within the civil law) and without fear of A Majoritarian backlash. This is just one example. The electoral college is one part of this minority protection structure. It has worked pretty well for 200 plus years. Leave it alone.
28. October 2020 at 15:01
Agree with right to secede if you get rid of the electoral college. And the right to secede is obviously why the electoral college would remain. It would be too easy for a small state to pick off industries with lower taxes etc. While also saving on military expense.
Anyway the core of our Republic and why its lasted so long is the constitution was designed to limit concentrated political power. If you want to enact something you need it to be highly popular otherwise you won’t control the Senate, Court, POTUS, and House necessary to pass the law. A rural state even though they do not have the majority of the population should not have to live by the laws forced on them by population centers. This is what has maintained peace between our hinterland and our cities.
28. October 2020 at 15:04
Scott,
Isn’t your proposal kind of unrealistic? One would have to change the constitution of the US, but how is this possible in these partisan times.
Not to mention that it misses the point, because the EC is not the main problem. I always scratch my head why so many Americans argue kind of besides the point regarding the EC. Maybe I missed something?
I think we should be more precise. The EC itself is not a huge problem, the problem is the winner-takes-all system. But nowhere in the constitution does it say that it must be a winner-takes-all system.
In fact, in the beginning there was no winner-takes-all system and the Founding Fathers didn’t even have it on their minds.
There are also two states today that still (or already) have a fairer system, I think it’s Nebraska and Maine.
Winner-takes-all is kind of absurd, in fact, there is no reason for Trump to put his name on the ballot in states like California at all.
And that’s exactly how he argues during the election campaign, California is the enemy, there’s simply no reason for him to appeal to them. The man is simply consistent, he has understood the electoral system.
The other extreme are people who really go to the ballots in states like California and vote for Biden or Trump, as if their vote had any chance of being relevant. In these states astrology, curses and hand reading have more actual influence.
28. October 2020 at 15:28
[…] Co-blogger Scott Sumner, over at his own blog, themoneyillusion, writes: […]
28. October 2020 at 15:56
Luis, I favor a parliamentary system.
Liquidity, I used to really like Epstein, but some of his stuff on Covid was rather—unpersuasive to put it kindly.
Alex, That may be true.
Jg, I don’t see the EC serving that role at all. I just see zero evidence for that claim. For instance, it made no difference during the entire 1900s, as the EC outcome was identical to the popular vote outcome. The first time in my lifetime it made a difference was 2000, and we ended up with the worst of the two candidates. I doubt whether Bush protected “minority rights” any more than Gore would have.
And of course Trump is actively hostile to minorities–he’s a populist.
Sean, You said:
“Anyway the core of our Republic and why its lasted so long is the constitution was designed to limit concentrated political power. If you want to enact something you need it to be highly popular otherwise you won’t control the Senate, Court, POTUS, and House necessary to pass the law. ”
None of that has ANYTHING to do with the EC. Vermont has to do whatever Trump forces them to do, even though they didn’t vote for Trump. And we have an EC! I think you are confusing federalism (which I support) with the EC.
Christian, I don’t see how your comments are relevant to this post. It’s not politically feasible? It’s not the most important issue right now? So what? Do you want me to also stop talking about NGDP targeting?
28. October 2020 at 16:19
Scott,
Maybe you didn’t understand my comment. The EC has, if you think carefully, nothing or not much to do with the problem mentioned in the study. The problem is the winner-takes-it-all system. One can keep the EC by simply adapting the winner-takes-all systems.
This way elections can be made stable again. Utopias are always nice, but it would be more helpful if we could solve problems on a practical level.
Nowadays I often have the impression that many people don’t want to solve problems anymore, they just want to whine about how evil the world is and how an evil other side is supposedly ruining their life.
28. October 2020 at 18:31
I think you mean it is a fence, but has outlived its usefulness. There were reasons for it then, but they’re not good ones now.
28. October 2020 at 19:09
In 1787 the issue was small states vs big states and the electoral college was supported by the the small states to protect themselves from the big states. Today I see the electoral college as a protection for the rural parts of the country from the large urban centers. To keep the country together we needed the electoral college in 1787 and we need it just as much in 2020.
28. October 2020 at 20:07
If the U.S. is truly a banana republic, minor tinkering with the Constitution won’t help.
29. October 2020 at 02:51
[…] Co-blogger Scott Sumner, over at his own blog, themoneyillusion, writes: […]
29. October 2020 at 02:51
[…] Co-blogger Scott Sumner, over at his own blog, themoneyillusion, writes: […]
29. October 2020 at 02:58
Whenever the democratic party loses their response is to change the constitution. Whether its packing the courts or removing the electoral college, it’s always the same. There calling card has become “my way or the highway”, and that by definition totalitarian.
Trump is not corrupt. The swamp is corrupt. And the swamp wants him out, because tariffs are saving people’s jobs. Before Covid, the economy had the best growth rate in three decades. Unemployment was at its lowest since 1971.
29. October 2020 at 03:08
Trump is going to win BIG LEAGUE. I haven’t seen this type of enthusiasm since Reagan. Big shock to these socialist elites who want to erode our individuality. America is not buying what you are selling!!!!
29. October 2020 at 05:14
Electoral college support federalism by giving small states a greater say in federal office than their population would warrant. But as you say adding new small states could undo that. Coastal elites also have more power in media and techs finance etc. EC and Senate balance out that power by giving them more vote per capita.
Also the EC is less important that people think due to the fact politicians compete for electors not votes. Campaign strategy would change such as allowing the score in California to be run up. Trump won the popular vote if you subtract California and NY.
29. October 2020 at 05:38
If anything, Sumner understates his case.
The 2000 election showed that sending bullyboys to disrupt vote counts (in Florida) could stall the count, with the Supreme Court quickly ruling in Bush jr’s favor to end the re-counts forever. Bush jr. lost that election, but won in the EC/SC (Electoral College/Supreme Court).
This go’ round Biden has assembled an army of 600 lawyers, and who knows what Trump is up to. I sense both parties would disrupt vote counts in swing states, or any close state, when necessary, and both parties would pack ballot boxes when possible, or engage in voter suppression.
A reasonable guess is the election results can somehow be stalled, and the matter may end up in the Supreme Court again.
Imagine two or three swing states where votes cannot be counted.
There may be “armed mobs in the streets” according to John Cochrane, as linked to be Sumner.
29. October 2020 at 06:34
America will never be a socialist nation. This “great reset” that Klaus Schwab wants will never happen in the United States. If you think 60M people are going to roll over and capitulate to this new totalitarian state, then you are going to be in a world of pain!
29. October 2020 at 06:49
Curious on your thoughts on the National Popular Vote initiative:
https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/
Seems like a constitutional amendment isn’t actually needed, if enough states (representing >270 electoral votes) passed the law to decide their electors based on the NPV, then the electoral college becomes moot. Granted, I realize that it will require states representing another 74 electoral votes to enact the law, and it looks like most of the coastal states have already enacted to get to the 196 they have.
29. October 2020 at 07:26
You can’t argue with this argument “Both modern America and modern France have a huge national government. They are highly urban societies and do not have slavery. There is instant communication and we have the technology to conduct national elections. We are nothing like the America of 1787. The only reason we still have the EC is that our Constitution is very hard to amend, particularly when the amendment would reduce the power of smaller states.”
29. October 2020 at 07:33
The Electoral College isn’t going anywhere. It might be removed someday but it will be well after the point where the US is recognizable
29. October 2020 at 08:01
Ending the electoral college ends Federalism.
The Federal government comes under the control of a few highly populated states. Power would be concentrated and grow. The notion of limited government would end. Local control of political life would to a great degree end, replaced by an all powerful central government controlled by a few elite states.
Perhaps these states will be benevolent dictators but the vast stretch of history, a history our Founders were very familiar with, shows that concentration of power reduces individual liberty.
If you assume that the Constitution was written by evil racists, then go ahead and burn the system down. Let’s start the tyranny of the majority and tear the Constitution apart. Pack the Supreme Court so it just becomes a rubber stamp for the will of a political majority. Turn DC, Puerto Rico, or even El Salvador and Costa Rica into new States. (With open borders, why not open entry to the Union to other countries? As long as they support the Democratic Socialist vision.)
I suppose Scott “Elmer Fudd” Summer assumes that any problem that befuddles Venezuela can be solved with better monetary policy. So if we end Federalism and burn the Constitution thus switching to tyrannical majority rule, what do we have to lose. Freedom is so overrated I guess.
29. October 2020 at 09:31
What is wrong with you Scott? Okay, so you like popular vote better–whatever. But you sound like a moron. You use your “county” example as if that were absurd. How do Parliamentary systems work? How does Britain work? They have 650 parliamentary constituencies. They elect the prime minister (with a little ceremonial help from the monarch). They complain (the losers that is) that the party with the most popular vote often loses.But technically–not practically—people don’t even vote for prime minister–House of Lords gets to watch
How does Japan work? Almost the same except both houses get involved–but the “lower house” (465 members) has final say. for all practical purposes. Again no popular vote—yet everyone knows who they are voting for
How does Germany work? They have a Rube Goldberg twist—but in the end the Bundestag elects—same thing—no popular vote for Chancellor.
None of these countries guarantee that the prime minister’s party has the most “popular” votes.
The poorest countries are the ones that generally elect the head of government directly or vote for president directly who chooses head of Government (like Hindenberg and Hitler :-))
I am not sure what you are getting at. You seem to believe popular vote is best but very few do it—although Russia and Rwanda do,
29. October 2020 at 09:55
Philo, You said:
“If the U.S. is truly a banana republic, minor tinkering with the Constitution won’t help.”
Sure it would help, just not all that much.
Sean, You said:
“Trump won the popular vote if you subtract California and NY.”
In other words, “if you assume that 20% of the US population should have no say in the election.”
Jim, I haven’t studied that, but I’d be fine with the proposal if it works.
Skeptical, I agree.
LB, You said:
“Ending the electoral college ends Federalism.”
LOL, Something that has zero impact from 1884 to 2000 is somehow essential to our way of life.
Michael, You said:
“But you sound like a moron. You use your “county” example as if that were absurd. How do Parliamentary systems work? How does Britain work? They have 650 parliamentary constituencies.”
Perhaps some other commenters can explain to Michael who the actual “moron” is here.
29. October 2020 at 10:01
In The Federalist Papers, James Madison (1751–1836), Alexander Hamilton (1755–1804) and John Jay (1745–1829) argued vigorously for the suggested model of interlocking federal arrangements (Federalist 10, 45, 51, 62). Madison and Hamilton agreed with Hume that the risk of tyranny by passionate majorities was reduced in larger republics where member units of shared interest could and would check each other: “A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any improper or wicked project, will be less likely to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it.” (Federalist 10). Splitting sovereignty between member unit and center would also protect individuals’ rights against abuse by authorities at either level, or so believed Hamilton, quoting Montesquieu at length to this effect (Federalist 9).
For example under the Scott system the citizens of LA could demand free plastic surgery for all the citizens of LA and send the bill to the citizens of Montana. The state of Illlinois is under extreme financial stress due to years of political corruption. The politicians of Illinois can buy votes through political corruption and send the bill’s to other states. The citizens of the smaller states must just accept the demands of the majority. Even they complain the Supreme Court is a runner stamp for the majority.
29. October 2020 at 10:23
I will try to needle a bit supporters of EC and also Trump supporters. Trump requested that the winner of the election should be known on the election night. Which he thinks is the night of 4 November. This would helpfully cut off a lot of ballots mailed late and maybe mail ballots period. But the true election date according to EC is not 3 November, it is 14 December when the electrors would vote for the president. Should we just ignore all the hand wrangling about the importence of “election night” and say weight until 14 December? How about justice Kavanaugh opinion that the states have a legitimate interest in settling the results of elections early? Should he wrote instead “you have until 14 December anyway, don’t be whiners and count all the ballots already”?
29. October 2020 at 15:42
Since Mr Sumner likes to LOL
The key reason why the Electoral College can choose a President who loses the popular vote rests in federalism.
https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/YOO-Paper-for-PLP-2019.pdf
“[T]he issue is democracy with federalism (the Electoral College) versus democracy without federalism (a national popular vote). Either is democratic. Only the Electoral College preserves federalism, moderates ideological differences and promotes national consensus in our choice of a chief executive.”
https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/commentary/electoral-college-imperfect-preserves-federalism-best
If the Founders had wished to create a “pure democracy,” they would have done so. They created instead what Madison called “a complex polity” to restrain government. If we abolish the Electoral College, we will take a step away from that constraining design and a step toward a plebiscitary presidency driven by unchecked majority rule.
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/keep-electoral-college
29. October 2020 at 17:03
The EC is yet another safeguard against what the founding father feared the most…the centralization of power. Should we get rid of the senate too? 2 senators per state seems unfair considering some states have more people than others…
30. October 2020 at 04:21
Interesting – scott, the non-populist, promotes a populist national vote. Furthermore, any win 1% or less in vote margin, say 1.25m votes, would likely result in recounts. There is a good chance we would have more recounts over time than with the current system. Try recounting 1M ballots.
30. October 2020 at 08:57
D.O. Excellent example!
LB, It has nothing to do with Federalism which is local rule.
It’s simply a technique for picking presidents. And you aren’t going to convince me by citing right wing cults like “Heritage”.
Nick, You said:
“The EC is yet another safeguard against what the founding father feared the most…the centralization of power.”
No it isn’t. It had no effect from 1884 to 2000. And during that period the country got dramatically more centralized. So no, it doesn’t do that.
30. October 2020 at 09:19
And the biggest defenders of the EC were the centralist Hamiltonians.
30. October 2020 at 10:04
Scott argues that we have eroded federalism for many years so if we now shatter it, who cares.
“In turn, and rather uncharacteristically, the Justices who usually dissent in federalism cases in favor of greater federal power, though dissenting yet again, sided with the states this time. Thus, Justices Ginsburg, Stevens, Breyer, and Souter all agreed that the states, including their own courts, should be given every opportunity to fulfill suggest that if a State is unable to perform its prescribed obligations,the duties assigned to it under the Constitution….. they categorically rejected the view that this area raises any individual rights violations under the Constitution.
———
With these competing views in hand, we come to the end of our road. We end with Bush v. Gore. In the case, the Court reminds us that we have struck a compromise between democracy and federalism. On the side of federalism, the Court states in stark terms that the “individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College.” Additionally, the “State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors.”
On the side of democracy, it is fair to say that our commitment to majority rule encompasses the principle of “one person, one vote” and that this principle “comes closer to summarizing current notions …. to the realm of “moral platitude. ‘
At present however, when federalism and democracy clash or when notions of popular sovereignty meet the current system of selecting our President and Vice President, federalism wins; the Electoral College prevails. Whether rightly or not, we believe that this end result will continue until we achieve any consensus in the struggle to accommodate democracy and federalism. As matters stand, in other words, the Electoral College is our default position as we struggle over our commitment between democracy and federalism.
https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1260&context=facpub
30. October 2020 at 10:17
Why argue in favor of big government and CENTRALIZED government ? Why adjust the constitution to centralized big government ? Shoudn’t true conservatives be arguing in favor of small government and weakm descentralized government?
30. October 2020 at 14:27
I like the electoral college and think that it has value in maintaining our federalist structure. Even setting aside Scott’s claim that it has no such value, one has to consider whether its value outweighs the increase in the risk of disputed elections that it carries(from 1 in 400 to 1 in 10). That’s a considerable increase in risk.
30. October 2020 at 21:06
Scott,
Path dependence.
The initial idea was congress picks the president — the so called Virginia plan. But how should the house and senate agree? Well all them would vote together at once, each legislator getting one vote. Then it was objected that this system made the president too weak and a national popular vote proposed. This did not find support and the compromise was a separate “mini-congress” to vote — the electoral collage — with the people voting for the electors.
So the question applies — should we dispense also with bicameralism?
No — while the prestige of the states has declined — yet the great distances separating the states has maintained substantial gaps in character despite the loss of communication barriers.
31. October 2020 at 08:51
Jose, You said:
“true conservatives be arguing in favor of small government and weakm descentralized government?”
Yes.
Carl, Keep in mind it played zero role in protecting federalism from 1884 to 2000.