Reformers Say U.S. Should Drop Out of Electoral College

Earlier this year, when Ross Perot was soaring in the polls, sentiment was building among some in Congress to junk the Electoral College system of electing a President state-by-state.

Lawmakers in both parties feared that a strong showing by Perot could have denied President Bush and Democrat Bill Clinton the 270 electoral votes a candidate needs to win the November election outright. Such an outcome could have thrown the contest into the House--or triggered a spate of deal-making among delegates to the Electoral College. In any event, many were alarmed at the prospect of a raucous, “undemocratic” election, wherein the runner-up in the popular vote might wind up in the White House.

Once Perot decided not to pursue his candidacy, the pressing anxieties subsided and the push to change the method for selecting the nation’s chief executive receded. Still, debate continues over whether the Electoral College should be abolished, especially among those who fear the system is a “constitutional calamity” waiting to happen.

BACKGROUND: The framers of the Constitution adopted the electoral system as a compromise to those on the differing sides of the federal-state conflict, the presidential-congressional conflict and the big state-small state conflict.

The framers, in that age of limited communication, also doubted that ordinary voters would be informed about presidential candidates outside their own state. The solution was to have voters select citizens from their state--electors--who had knowledge of national affairs and to trust them to choose the President.

The overall number of electors is 538; each state’s total is derived from its number of senators and House members (the District of Columbia also has 3 electors). The candidate who wins the popular vote in a state takes all of the electors pledged to him. (Exceptions are Nebraska and Maine, where some electors are allocated according to the popular vote in congressional districts.)

Although electors are not required to vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged, they almost always do when the Electoral College meets after Election Day.

The electoral system exaggerates the margin of victory in the popular vote, usually giving a clear winner even when the popular vote is close. But it remains possible that a third-party candidate, by winning even just a large state or two, can prevent both of the major-party candidates from winning an electoral majority.

The deadlocked elections of 1800 and 1824 were decided by the House in wild affairs. Third-party candidacies came close to forcing a House showdown in 1948 and 1968. If that had happened, each state’s House delegation would have cast one vote.

ISSUES: Most proponents of scrapping the Electoral College advocate a direct election, with a runoff provided if no candidate receives 40% of the vote.

Sen. David Pryor (D-Ark.), sponsor of a constitutional amendment to make such a change, argues that the electoral system discriminates against small and medium-sized states. “Simple electoral math dictates that the candidates spend 90% of their time campaigning in the eight to 12 largest states, because that is where the electoral votes are,” he says.

He also contends that the Electoral College’s winner-take-all rule disenfranchises millions of voters.

“The 3.1 million New Yorkers who voted for Bush and the 4.7 million Californians who voted for (Democrat Michael S.) Dukakis in 1988 should have had their votes count but didn’t, because the other candidate won that state and therefore all its electoral votes,” Pryor says.

Those who oppose radically changing the electoral system argue that it has worked well and that any substitute could cause big problems.

“The proposals will make runoffs the rule, proliferate parties and candidates and turn the selection process into a national ordeal,” says Judith A. Best, a political science professor at the State University of New York.

The reform proposals, she says, “would be a death blow to our already weakened moderate two-party system.”