In this episode, we explore the Electoral College: Where it came from, how it works and who it benefits. Is this the best way to pick a president?
This episode explores the Electoral College including:
Please subscribe to Next Gen Voter to not miss out on future episodes:https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/next-gen-voter/id1486673177
Welcome to the next gen voter podcast-the only podcast of the next gen, by the next gen, for the next gen.(go into the popular vote joke). But we don’t do it like that in the US. Why the hell not? Instead we use the electoral college, the only college that millennials hate more than the college board. So today I’ll look at the electoral college, where it came from, how it works, the problems it causes seemingly every 4 years, and what we can do to improve it.
The Electoral college is not a perfect system for electing a president. The founders would be the very first person to tell you that. It wis initially forged as a series of compromises made in the constitutional convention. The first was finding a way to both give the people a say(something that they lacked during their time under King George’s despotic rule, as well as protecting the rights of citizens against the idea of mob rule, specifically by a populace that was rural and uneducated. The solution they came up with was the idea of electors, people who would make a vote to award the electoral vote of the state that they represented to the nominee who they believed would be best to be president. To be fair, as George Washington referenced in his farewell address, the founders did not seek the growth of political parties, as quickly developed in America, which has quickly prevented electors from truly exercising their discretion. The other set of competing interest that led to the electoral college was the clash for power between slave states and free states. As the free states had more voters, they wanted elections to be decided by popular vote, for they would surely win. However, the slave states wanted their slaves to count to protect their political interests. This led to the most infamous clause of the constitution: The 3/5ths compromise, where all slaves were ruled to count as ⅗ of a person for purposes of representation, which allowed the south to dominate elections before the civil war, with 9 of the first 15 presidents coming from slave states.
Nowadays, the electoral college still gives disproportionate power to certain areas of the country, but not on the basis of slavery, but rather population. This is because of the unique structure of the electoral college, where each state gets a number of electoral votes equal to the sum of their senators and representatives. As a result, because each state is guaranteed at least 1 congressmen and two senators, the small states are guaranteed 3 electoral votes, while because of the cap on representatives at 435, large states like California receive less electoral votes per person. This gives advantages to citizens of Alaska, Vermont, Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota, 3 very-white states who have more electoral power than their population suggests they should, while disadvantaging California, Texas and Florida, 3 very diverse, very large states. So, even without slavery around, the electoral college is still acting as an inhibitor against the voice of the diverse and the majority. In fact, Despite losing the popular vote only once of the last 8 elections, the democratic party, the easily more diverse of the two major political parties, has only won 5 elections, twice winning the popular vote by over half a million votes and losing in the electoral college.
Additionally, because of the increased polarization seen in America today, the winners of ¾ of the states are decided before the primaries are over due to the fact that these states are either too red or too blue for a shift in the national environment to have an effect on their own state. As a result, campaigns target the same 10 or so swing states, generally in the upper midwest, southwest and sun belt, completely ignore the concerns of the other 3 dozen states to target the 5 million persuadable voters in these states. But why? Why is it fair that these people should get to actively determine the president while votes in California or in Nebraska aren’t counted for weeks, because they are not close enough to actually make a difference.
These questions are the argument behind the movement to switch to a national popular vote. At first, this was attempted in the 1970s with a constitutional amendment that was Filibustered in the senate. After the past couple of election cycles, where the GOP’s electoral performance has greatly exceeded their popular vote performance, it is all but impossible for the electoral college to be amended constitutionally in the near future, which has led to a creative workaround:THe National Interstate Vote compact. This agreement, which states sign onto, pledges these states to award their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, not necessarily the winner of their state. However, this only goes into effect when the states that have signed onto it are worth enough electoral votes to win the electoral college, at which point, they will not need the support of any other states. Currently, this compact is at 196 of the 270 electoral votes and has also passed at least one legislative chamber in AR, AZ, ME, MI, MN, NC, NV, OK, VA, which represent more than enough electoral votes to put it over the top. The idea of one person, one vote could be just years away, but it takes each and every one of you calling your representatives, voting for people who believe in the popular vote and making your voice heard, so that everyone’s voice is heard equally, no matter what state they live in. Only then, will truly a government of the people, by the people, for the people.