One Man, One Vote

I am not a constitutional scholar, yet every four years I find myself debating my other self about the wisdom and sustainability of the Electoral College System.  This became a more heated discussion in my head when we saw the inevitable drama of 2000 unfold, whereby the man declared president by electoral votes failed to achieve a majority in the popular vote.  This has happened only twice before in history; both times a Republican won the office with electoral votes over a Democratic opponent who secured the popular vote.  Rutherford B. Hayes and Benjamin Harrison were each one-term presidents—Hayes by choice, and Harrison after defeat by Grover Cleveland.

It is always fun to return to the historic roots of the Constitution to understand best how we got into our current mess.  The right to bear arms, for example, stems from the Minutemen’s defiance of British oppression, mostly in response to unfair exploitation of the colonies by the Crown.  There was a growing fear in England that the colonists would organize a militia (how right they were!)  When the British marched on Lexington and Concord, it was largely to destroy stockpiles of arms and gunpowder.  (Here in Lexington, the taverns that housed the arms still stand!)  The spirit of the Second Amendment and “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” had little to do with defending themselves against each other, but rather was a declaration that the colonists had the right to defend themselves as a body against their oppressors.

The Electoral College is also an interesting Constitutional construct when seen in its own historical light.  In fact, the framers of the Constitution thought the general public not worthy of casting votes for the highest office.  There was never any consideration of “one man, one vote,” or for citizens to have equal voices in the selection of the US President.  The Electoral College was designed to give power to the States in selecting the President.  It was a balancing safeguard against overcharging the federal government with too much authority.

Our Founding Fathers could never have anticipated the extent to which we, the people, could become involved in a general presidential election.  Who could have foreseen the technology that would allow candidates to visit multiple states in a single day?  Who could have foreseen our ability to follow what a candidate says from town to town, to cross reference the claims and promises and to observe body language.  We know more about our presidential candidates then we know about ourselves.  We watch what they eat, what they wear, how much money they spend, and with whom they have slept.  We scrutinize the parts in their hair and the colors of their ties. 

Perhaps the framers of the Constitution understood that good government requires engagement, involvement and contact.  Practically speaking, a candidate for the highest office in the land could not have reached out to his entire constituency within a campaign cycle.  It made sense for the candidates to rise from the ranks of the Senate and Congress and then be vetted against the particular needs of the states.

The question is whether we have now outgrown this level of government paternalism.  With around 45% of Americans of voting age refusing to cast their ballots, it becomes more likely that the distribution of electoral votes does not represent the distribution of American votes cast.  Whether due to apathy, a sense of futility, or just plain laziness, when we do not turn out at the polls we sacrifice the power of our individual votes.  Although the framers feared that the common man (and eventually the common woman, too) did not have the wherewithal to vote responsibly, it was always their intention that the votes cast by state would be represented proportionally by the allotted electoral votes.   That it does not is an American tragedy.

Unfortunately, there are many barriers to doing away with the Electoral College.   The most difficult one is the fact that gaming and suspicion pervade our political system.  Whichever party moves to abolish the electoral system for a more generalized election policy will be suspected of having a near term agenda.  An even greater hurdle is the fact that the Electoral College gives power to the states.  Even if a proposed Constitutional Amendment survived the unlikely 2/3 majorities of the House and Senate, it would then require ratification from 38 out of the 50 states.  I cannot imagine a scenario where states would rally to give away the power that the current system vests in them.

Election night has become  a lot like watching the battle of the lapiths and the centaurs.  We hunker down with a bowl of popcorn to see whether the red states or the blue states will prevail in an awkward and bloody battle.  It seems less and less about the candidates and less and less about the people of the United States.  In the final analysis, the only way that we as individual citizens have a fighting chance is to get out and vote.