Political system needs changes

I admit to being a political junkie. Thus I was greatly attracted to a recent article by Professor Bill Russell of Graceland University about the Electoral College, which was written into our Constitution by amendment in 1787.

This means that when we go to the polls on the first Tuesday in November to vote for presidential candidates, we are really only selecting “electors.” The electors, in turn, form an “Electoral College” consisting of 538 members from whom it takes a simple majority of 270 votes to actually elect the president and vice president.

At the time the Electoral College was established, there were no national political parties, neither women nor blacks could vote, no radio or television – thus no way to truly inform a national audience about a particular candidate. In Bill’s erudite, yet typically irreverent approach to complicated problems, he aligns himself with an impressive number of persons and organizations who suggest the Electoral College should be abolished. Changing the Constitution is essentially an insurmountable task, so he suggests we create a National Popular Vote Movement which, in my mind, is only slightly less difficult to do.

I totally agree that the Electoral College is an anachronism that can be unfair and, under some conditions, violates our historic democratic aspirations. For example, if 5,000,000 Californians vote for one candidate and 4,999,999 vote for another, all 54 of California’s electoral votes go to the winning candidate. Furthermore, each California elector represents about 551,000 people; whereas each elector from Wyoming represents only about 152,000 people, which is equivalent to having 3.6 times more voting power. The Electoral College clearly discriminates against large-population states and third parties.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., announced in 2004 that she would introduce legislation to abolish the Electoral College. Among the many facts upon which she based her views were that U.S. candidates now focus on a handful of contested states and essentially ignore tens of millions of Americans living in other states. A candidate could lose in 39 states but still win the presidency, or a candidate like Ross Perot in 1992 could win 20 million votes and yet receive no electoral votes. Worse yet, an elector has the freedom to vote their personal preference, contrary to his party’s wishes.

On the flip side, eliminating the Electoral College raises numerous problems such as taking away prestigious political privileges and violating states’ rights to regulate internal affairs. And, after all, there have been only four instances of disputed elections when the Electoral College winner did not also win the popular vote: John Quincy Adams (1824), Rutherford B. Hayes (1876), Benjamin Harrison (1888) and George W. Bush (2000). In 1997 a proposed constitutional amendment to change the Electoral College received the support of the American Bar Association, the League of Women Voters, Common Cause, the Chamber of Commerce of the United States, and the AFL-CIO.

In my mind, making a law outlawing any type of mass media electioneering for any federal office more than 60 days prior to the election date, such as is the case in several other robust democracies, would be easier to accomplish and be more effective than getting rid of the Electoral College. Do Americans really require years of steady electioneering propaganda before they can cast an intelligent vote in national primary and general elections?