Let’s tweak the Electoral College system, not discard it

The Electoral College is the process we use to elect the President and Vice President of the United States. It was created by the framers of the Constitution, an ingenious compromise that allowed the popular election of the president, but on a state-by-state basis, reflecting the will of majorities in each state.

Each state has as many “electors” in the Electoral College as it has Representatives and Senators (Washington has 12). The political parties select the electors through the caucus and convention systems. Voters actually vote for a slate of electors who in turn vow to cast their ballots for the state winner at the national convention.

All but two states have a “winner take all’ system, which means that even if not all congressional districts voted for a winning candidate, that candidate is entitled to all the electoral votes. As a result, our state has a large, relatively urban population (“blue”) near Seattle that controls the electoral votes of the entire state, and by extension, could control the entire country’s elections. Democrats control the large urban voting blocks, and they are trying to eliminate the electoral college. A bad idea.

One way they would replace it is with a direct national popular election which would completely negate the voices of less populated states.

Under this national referendum method, there could be temptations for vote-stealing in every one of the 178,000 precincts. Without recounts and certifications isolated state by state, close presidential elections could extend into long post-election periods of political litigation and challenges, paralyzing the country.

The number of presidential candidates could rise sharply, creating the need for a national run-off election with political deal making and ballot litigation. Candidates would be unlikely to receive half of the national vote, and we might get a president with only 20% of the vote.

Multi-party “coalition governments” could appear (as in Europe), which could lead to intractable “gridlocks” that bring government to a halt.

It also could mean dismantling federalism: there would be little reason to have a Senate representing the interests of the states, and perhaps no sense in even having states, except as administrative departments of a central government. The division of power between the states and the federal government (as in ratifying constitutional amendments, for example) could cease to exist. The Constitution itself would become vulnerable.

Interestingly, I read somewhere that: “If Clinton had won California by 55.3% rather than 61.3% — still a formidable landslide — she would have lost the national popular vote along with the electoral vote.” The framers anticipated the sharp vote concentrations by viewpoints and regions, so they invented the Electoral College to balance them out, thus avoiding revolutions.

Another (bad) way to replace the Electoral College without the necessity of a Constitutional amendment is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC). By signing this, as Washington already has, states agree to give away their electors to the winner of the popular vote, even if voters in that state rejected that candidate! If this methodology gets ratified, states effectively disenfranchise all their voters instead of just a minority. It is meant to give the large blocs control of the country.

There are at least two better tweaks to the electoral college process.

One is the “District System” that Maine and Nebraska have adopted. They award their electors by congressional district instead of winner take all, and give their remaining two electoral votes to the statewide winner.

Similarly, states might award electors in proportion to each candidate’s popular vote count. Both of these ensure a much wider representation of all the voices in the state by diminishing the influence of large voting blocks.

Additionally, both would secure a meaningful voice for less populous states, and neither of these tweaks would require a Constitutional amendment.

Unfortunately, states such as Texas, New York, California and Washington, which have a disproportionate amount of power in one party, would probably be unwilling to give up that electoral control to ensure more democratic representation. On the other hand, if “the people” push hard for real representation, the power brokers would understand that the numbers would even out in the wash.

Priscilla Terry is a member of The Olympian’s 2020 Board of Contributors. She is a retired commercial real estate broker and former owner of Prime Locations, Inc. She serves on several committees in Thurston County, including Innovative Justice and Opioid Response. Reach her at pristerry44@gmail.com.

This story was originally published November 27, 2020 at 5:45 AM.