Download PF 2011 Nov.cdr - Plain Local Schools

PARADIGM
Research
PUBLIC FORUM
Position Paper
NOVEMBER
2011-2012
DIRECT POPULAR VOTE SHOULD REPLACE
ELECTORAL VOTE IN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS.
The Paradigm Research Public Forum Position Paper
November 2011
by David Cram Helwich
Copyright © 2011 by Paradigm Research, Inc. All rights reserved.
First Edition Printed In The United States Of America
For information on Paradigm Debate Products:
PARADIGM RESEARCH
P.O. Box 2095
Denton, Texas 76202
Toll-Free 800-837-9973
Fax 940-380-1129
Web /www.oneparadigm.com/
E-mail [email protected]
All rights are reserved. This book, or parts thereof, may not be reproduced by any means - graphic,
electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping, or information storage and retrieval
systems - without the written permission of the publisher. Making copies of this book, or any portion, is a
violation of United States and international copyright laws.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
1
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
NOVEMBER 2011
INDEX
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
AFFIRMATIVE CASE POSITIONS
DIRECT ELECTION SUPERIOR:
TOPSHELF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
ELECTOR INFIDELITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
ELECTORAL TIE/HOUSE ELECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
FLYOVER STATES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
FRAUD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
LARGE STATES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
LEGITIMACY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
MINORITY CANDIDATE VICTORIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
MINORITY VOTERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
MULTIWARRANT/GENERAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
NATIONAL CAMPAIGNING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
NO OTHER NATION USES ELECTORAL COLLEGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
PUBLIC SUPPORTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
TURNOUT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
VOTE EQUALITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
ANSWERS TO:
"BIG STATE/BIG CITY FOCUS" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
"DIRECT/DISTRICT ALLOCATION" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
"ELECTORAL MANDATE" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
"EXTREMIST CANDIDATES" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
"FEDERALISM" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
"FOUNDING FATHERS" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
"LEGITIMACY" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
"MINORITY VOTERS" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
"NATIONAL UNITY/CAMPAIGNS" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
"POPULAR PASSIONS" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
"PROPORTIONAL ALLOCATION" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
"RECOUNTS" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
"RECOUNTS (FIREWALL)" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
"RUNOFFS/DEALMAKING" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
"SMALL STATES" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
"STATE INTERESTS" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
"THIRD PARTY/RUNOFF 'CONCERNS" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
NEGATIVE CASE POSITIONS
ELECTORAL COLLEGE SUPERIOR:
TOPSHELF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DEFINITIVE OUTCOME/RECOUNTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
EXTREMIST CANDIDATES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FEDERALISM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FINALITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FOUNDING FATHERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FRAGMENTATION/RUNOFFS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FRAUD/MANIPULATION CONCERNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LARGE STATE CONSOLIDATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LEGITIMACY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
75
78
82
85
88
89
90
91
93
94
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
2
NOVEMBER 2011
NEGATIVE CASE POSITIONS cont'd
MANDATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
MAJORITARIAN TYRANNY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
MINORITY VOTERS (GENERAL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
MINORITY VOTERS (JEWISH) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
MULTIWARRANT/GENERAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
NATIONAL UNITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
REGIONALISM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
SMALL STATES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
STATE POWER/ACCOUNTABILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
TIMELINESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
TRANSFER OF POWER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
TWO-PARTY SYSTEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
ANSWERS TO:
"BUSH V. GORE" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
"DEMOCRACY CONCERNS" (GENERAL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
"EVENS OUT CAMPAIGN SPENDING/ATTENTION" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
"MINORITY CANDIDATE VICTORIES" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
"NEAR MISSES/CLOSE CONTESTS" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
"OUTDATED" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
"TURNOUT CONCERNS" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
"VOTE EQUALITY CONCERNS" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
PARADIGM RESEARCH
3
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
NOVEMBER 2011
INTRODUCTION
RESOLVED: Direct popular vote should replace electoral vote in presidential elections.
The Public Forum community has selected a timely, interesting, and fairly-well balanced topic for November 2011, as
students will be asked to debate whether or not a direct popular vote should replace the electoral college. With the
national presidential campaigns heating up there is certain to be a fair amount of news coverage about the 2012
"electoral map," and the efforts of several states (notably Wisconsin and Pennsylvania) to potentially apportion their
electoral votes by congressional district help ensure that media attention will be focused on the function and
importance electoral college. Students will also encounter a wealth of commentary on the topic from political scientists
and the political punditry, with a number of strong advocates on both sides of the question.
The Electoral College (EC) is one of the most confusing and archaic parts of the U.S. Constitution, its role spelled out
in Article II and clarified in the Twelfth Amendment. A recent paper advocating for electoral college reform described
the system thusly:
The President and Vice President of the United States are not elected directly by the voters. Instead, the
President and Vice President are elected by a group of 538 people who are known individually as
"presidential electors" and collectively as the "Electoral College." Each political party nominates its own
candidates (typically long-standing party activists) for the position of presidential elector. Presidential
electors are chosen separately by each state and the District of Columbia on the Tuesday after the first
Monday in November in presidential election years. The 538 presidential electors cast their votes for
President and Vice President in mid-December in separate meetings held in the 50 state capitals and the
District of Columbia. [John R. Koza, PhD, Barry Fadem, attorney, Mark Grueskin, attorney, Michael S.
Mandell, attorney, Robert Richie, Executive Director, FairVote, and Joseph F. Zimmerman, Professor,
Political Science, SUNY-Albany, EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING
THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p. 33-34]
The EC system becomes even more complicated in the event that two or more candidates receive the same number of
electoral votes. Under these circumstances, the selection of the President and Vice President is left to the House of
Representatives, which then votes by state delegations to determine the winner of the race.
The EC is highly controversial, with opinion polls showing that a strong majority of the public favoring the selection
of the President and Vice President by direct popular vote. However, the electoral college system has resisted
substantial change since the early 19th century, in large part because of the inherent difficulty in amending the
Constitution. The closest that the U.S. has come to changing the electoral college occurred in 1969 and 1970, when the
House of Representatives passed a proposed amendment that would have allowed for the selection of the President and
Vice President by direct popular vote. However, the bill died to a filibuster in the U.S. Senate, and despite regular
rumblings from members of Congress, the prospect of the passage of "direct vote" amendment is rather slim.
Recognizing the challenges of changing the EC system via amendment, many advocates, most prominently John R.
Koza, have called for an interstate compact creating a National Popular Vote (NPV) that would apportion each state's
electoral votes proportional to a candidates share of the national popular vote, effectively circumventing the EC
system. Several states have agreed to enter the compact, and some commentators believe that the NPV could become a
reality in a majority of states by the 2016 Presidential election cycle.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
4
NOVEMBER 2011
The contemporary benchmark for both the strengths and weaknesses of the electoral college system is the 2000
Presidential election contest between Al Gore (D) and George W. Bush (R). Gore won the popular vote by
approximately a half-million votes, but Bush won the electoral college vote, and thus the election, after a controversial
conclusion to a recount in Florida that awarded Bush the state's electoral votes on the basis of a slim (<600 votes)
majority. Critics of the EC argue that the 2000 race shows that a "minority vote" candidate has a real chance of
winning every any Presidential election, potentially nullifying the effects of the popular vote and confounding the will
of the majority of the nation's voters. EC supporters, on the other hand, argue that the smooth transition of power and
presumed legitimacy of the Bush presidency demonstrate the strength of the electoral college in declaring a winner to
even hotly contested presidential contests in a timely and final fashion. The legitimacy of the outcome in Bush v. Gore
(both in the sense of the election and the outcome of the Supreme Court case of that name) is likely to feature
prominently in many debates on this topic.
Despite some discrepancies in wording, the meaning of the resolution should not be particularly controversial.
Although the resolution is worded as a resolution of policy, there is no "agent of action" prescribed by the resolution.
Presumably, the resolution asks whether "we" should endorse the replacement of the current electoral college system
with a direct national vote. The resolution does not specify *where* this shift in presidential selection process should
occur, but since the United States remains the only country that uses a true electoral college system, the prospect of
"non-U.S." shenanigans by teams on either side of the proposition should remain low. One important element of the
debate over the merits of the EC on which the resolution is silent is the criteria under which we would choose between
an electoral college and a direct election approach to picking a chief executive. Most of the literature assumes that such
a process should be judged based upon a combination of democratic principles (particularly one person, one vote) and
the avoidance of both election and campaign practices that would undermine the perceived legitimacy of the eventual
winner of the race.
Both sides have a number of very strong arguments at their disposal, and the best of these claims are outlined in the
evidence contained in each section's respective "topshelf" sections. We suggest that you read both sets of evidence very
closely. For the pro side, the principle of "vote equality" should feature prominently in every defense of the resolution.
Critics of the EC system argue that many voters are at least partially disenfranchised for a number of reasons. First, the
EC gives candidates a strong incentive to focus their campaign activities in a relatively narrow range of
narrowly-divided "swing states," largely ignoring the rest of the country. For example, in the 2008 Presidential race,
candidates spent the vast majority of their time and money in fewer than twelve states. Votes cast in swing states count
far more in determining the outcome of the election than do votes cast in so-called "flyover" states that demonstrate a
strong tendency towards supporting the candidate of one party or the other. Second, the electoral college creates the
real (as seen in 2000) possibility that a so-called "minority vote candidate" (a candidate who receives fewer popular
votes than one or more of their opponents) will win the electoral college vote, and thus the election. Under this
scenario, the votes cast for the losing candidate are discounted. Third, the structure of the EC itself effectively limits
the voting power of individuals, leaving the selection of the President and Vice President to a slate of electors.
Although the electoral college electors do not perform the rigorous deliberative functions anticipated by the nation's
founders, it is within the realm of possibility that some so-called "faithless" electors could even tip the outcome of the
election. Fourth, EC critics contend that the provisions for resolving an electoral tie in the House are so arcane and
fraught with the potential for political dealing that they could spur a constitutional crisis that makes the public furor
over the Bush v. Gore court case look minor in comparison. The pro team also has some very strong arguments about
the effects of the electoral college on turnout, voter and candidate education, the magnification of the potential for
fraud and contested recounts, and a number of other problems with the system. The pro section contains a very good
set of defensive answers to the most common defenses of the EC.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
5
NOVEMBER 2011
The con team can also marshal some very persuasive arguments. Tara Ross, an attorney and prominent defender of the
electoral college, argues that the EC has a long track record of fulfilling the basic purpose of a Presidential election,
which is to ensure the smooth and timely transition of power between one administration and a newly elected,
popularly legitimate administration. From the perspective of Ross and other EC proponents, the outcome of the 2000
presidential race proves this point, with George W. Bush being able to take office by the constitutionally appointed
date and the administration being viewed as legitimate by the vast majority of the public, despite some grumbling from
the political left. Indeed, most of the animus surrounding the outcome of the race was (and remains) directed at the
Florida recount process and subsequent court intervention, not the fact that Bush narrowly lost the popular vote. Bush
won by the rules, and was accepted as President even by his political enemies. The electoral college thus provided a
swift, definitive outcome to the race. EC supporters also identify a number of other strengths of the system. They claim
that the college protects state interests by giving them a say in the selection of the president, that the system tends to
"firewall" recount controversies to particular states, that the winner of the EC often possesses a much stronger mandate
than they would on the basis of the popular vote, and that voters in small states and voters who are members of racial
minority groups are more likely to have their voices heard under the EC system. Other proponents argue that the
winner-take-all nature of the EC helps solidify a two-party political system, encourages moderation among candidates
who are forced to appeal to a national base, and avoids the fragmentation of the electorate along regional, ethnic, or
other lines. A final, rather compelling argument, is that the EC provides a strong check against the centralization of
power into the federal government, and thus serves an important role in the system of checks and balances that help
protect individual liberty. The con section also contains responses to most of the likely "pro" objections to the college,
especially those relating to the sidelining of "flyover" states and the importance of "vote equality" in determining
electoral outcomes.
Best of luck!
PARADIGM RESEARCH
6
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
NOVEMBER 2011
DIRECT ELECTION SUPERIOR: TOPSHELF
1.
ELECTIONS ARE THE CORNERSTONE OF DEMOCRACY -- EVERY VOTE NEEDS TO COUNT
EQUALLY
Joseph Griffo, member, New York senate, EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR
ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.xli.
The current system does not serve the people. According to research by National Popular Vote, presidential
candidates concentrate over two-thirds of their advertising money and campaign visits in just six very close
states, and over 98 percent of their advertising money in just 15 battleground states. Something is wrong with
this picture. Elections are the cornerstone of our democracy. There is nothing more important in the American
system of government than elections that attract voters to examine the challenges of our time. And elections
must deal with all the people and all the issues, not just those important to a small handful of states. The current
system of electing a president effectively disenfranchises millions of Americans because they live in states where
one candidate or the other has a safe majority. At a time when America needs its citizens to be involved in
government, we need to ensure that every vote counts and that the popular vote is the true measure of victory
2.
CURRENT SYSTEM MEANS THAT MOST PEOPLE HAVE NO MEANINGFUL ROLE IN THE
ELECTION PROCESS
John Buchanan, former member of Congress, EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR
ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.xxxvi-xxxvii.
Today, the Electoral College system means that campaigns are focused on dangerously few states. In 2004, over
two-thirds of the country was completely neglected during the one nationwide political contest. Candidates
spend more and more money to reach fewer and fewer voters. In the close states, which do get attention, under
the winner take all system of allotting electoral votes practiced by most states, all who end up on the losing end
of even a 50.1% to 49.9% statewide vote are denied the right for their votes to count toward the election of the
candidate of their choice at the national level in a national election. Hence, too many people in too many places
have no meaningful role in the election process.
3.
NEED TO ABOLISH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE -- EVERY VOTE SHOULD COUNT EQUALLY
Birch Bayh, former member of Congress, EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING
THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.xxv.
In the final analysis, the most compelling reason for directly electing our president and vice president is one of
principle. In the United States every vote must count equally. One person, one vote is more than a clever phrase,
it's the cornerstone of justice and equality. We can and must see that our electoral system awards victory to the
candidates chosen by the most voters. In this day and age of computers, television, rapidly available news, and a
nationwide public school system, we don't need nameless electors to cast our votes for president. The voters
should cast them directly, themselves. Direct election is the only system that counts every vote equally and
where the voters cast their ballots directly for the candidates of their choice. It has the additional virtue of
operating in the way most Americans think the electoral process operates -- and is expected to operate.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
7
NOVEMBER 2011
DIRECT ELECTION SUPERIOR: TOPSHELF cont'd
4.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE SYSTEM DISENFRANCHISES THE PEOPLE IN NON-BATTLEGROUND
STATES
Gregory Aghazarian, former member, California State Assembly, EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED
PLAN FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.xxvii.
Every four years a presidential election takes place. Our votes are cast. Our votes are counted. But, do they
count? The truth of the matter is that we, the people, do not directly elect the President. The Electoral College
elects the President. Every four years, each state appoints electors who in turn elect a president. Under the U.S.
Constitution, each state legislature has the complete and total power as to how it appoints its electors (Article II,
section 1, clause 2). The current practice in 48 states is to appoint electors, winner-take-all, based on the
outcome of each state's popular vote. This sounds simple enough, but the problem is that the current practice
ensures that a large majority of Americans have no say in choosing their chief executive. Most states are solidly
"red" or "blue." This means that no matter how much money or time a presidential candidate spends in states like
Texas and Wyoming or New York and Vermont, the result is a foregone conclusion. Consequently, no money or
time is spent in these states. Instead, virtually everything goes into a small group of "battleground" states. In
2008, two-thirds of the collective presidential campaigns' time and money was dedicated to just 6 states, with
98% going to only fifteen states. Over two-thirds of us just had to sit back and watch. The real problem with the
current winner-take-all practice is that it encourages the wholesale dismissal of the hopes, dreams and aspirations
of over 200,000,000 Americans. Issues which are vital to states like Montana and California are routinely
disregarded. Under the current system, they do not matter. Issues which are vital to states like Ohio and
Pennsylvania are overemphasized. Under the current system, they do matter. It is difficult to imagine that the
Founding Fathers intended the disenfranchisement of so many states and the empowerment of so few in their
quest to form a more perfect union.
5.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE IS PROFOUNDLY ANTI-DEMOCRATIC
John Anderson, former member of Congress and Professor, Law, Nova Southeastern University, EVERY VOTE
EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE,
Third Edition, 2011, p.xxi.
I believe the occupant of the nation's highest office should be determined by a nationwide popular vote by
legally registered voters. The current system of allocating electoral votes on a statewide winner-take-all basis
divides us on regional lines, undercuts accountability, dampens voter participation, and can trump the national
popular vote. The system is not based on majority rule, and it fails to provide political equality. The
anti-democratic nature of the Electoral College is deeply grounded in our history. The Framers distrusted
democracy and saw the Electoral College as a deliberative body that would pick the best candidate. However,
the lofty view of the Founding Fathers was based on a wildly mistaken understanding of the way our political
system would evolve.
6.
CANDIDATES SHOULD CAMPAIGN NATIONALLY -- NEED TO LEARN FROM/INTERACT WITH ALL
VOTERS
James L. Brulte, former member of Congress, EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR
ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.xxxvi.
While this might be great for the states involved, the rest of the nation suffers as candidates of both major
political parties ignore them during the general election. Why is this a problem? Because during the course of
campaigns, political candidates are educated about local, regional, and state issues and they take this knowledge
with them once they are elected. And with a nation as large and diverse as ours, it is critical that presidential
candidates be educated about all our states, not just the lucky 16 swing states.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
8
NOVEMBER 2011
DIRECT ELECTION SUPERIOR: TOPSHELF cont'd
7.
DIRECT POPULAR VOTE IS THE BEST WAY TO FIX THE SYSTEM
John R. Koza, PhD, Barry Fadem, attorney, Mark Grueskin, attorney, Michael S. Mandell, attorney, Robert
Richie, Executive Director, FairVote, and Joseph F. Zimmerman, Professor, Political Science, SUNY-Albany,
EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL
POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.20.
Nationwide popular election of the President is the only system that * makes all states competitive, * guarantees
that the candidate with the most popular votes nationwide wins the Presidency, and * makes every vote equal.
The authors of this book believe that George W. Bush's lead of 3.5 million popular votes in 2004 should alone
have guaranteed him the Presidency in 2004-regardless of who ended up carrying Ohio. Similarly, Al Gore's lead
of 537,179 alone should have been sufficient to elect him as President in 2000-regardless of whether one
candidate or the other carried Florida by 537 votes.
8.
LACK OF CAMPAIGN ATTENTION TO THE MAJORITY OF THE COUNTRY IS UNDESIRABLE -DIMINISHED TURNOUT, WEAKENING OF MINORITY PARTIES
John R. Koza, PhD, Barry Fadem, attorney, Mark Grueskin, attorney, Michael S. Mandell, attorney, Robert
Richie, Executive Director, FairVote, and Joseph F. Zimmerman, Professor, Political Science, SUNY-Albany,
EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL
POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.15.
The effective disenfranchisement of voters in two thirds of the states has additional negative effects. First, the
absence of a meaningful presidential campaign in two thirds of the states diminishes voter turnout in those states.
A 2005 Brookings Institution report entitled Thinking About Political Polarization pointed out: "The electoral
college can depress voter participation in much of the nation. Overall, the percentage of voters who participated
in last fall's election was almost 5 percent higher than the turnout in 2000. Yet, most of the increase was limit- ed
to the battleground states. Because the electoral college has effectively narrowed elections like the last one to a
quadrennial contest for the votes of a relatively small number of states, people elsewhere are likely to feel that
their votes don't matter." Second, diminished voter turnout in presidential races in non-competitive states
weakens the candidates of the state's minority party for state and local offices, thereby making the state even less
competitive in the future. In turn, political divisiveness may be increased because a lack of competition may
increase the influence of each party's fringe elements. The number of battleground states has been declining for
many decades, and this decline appears to be continuing, as detailed in The Shrinking Battleground by the
Center for Voting and Democracy.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
9
NOVEMBER 2011
DIRECT ELECTION SUPERIOR: ELECTOR INFIDELITY
1.
ELECTORS ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO RESPECT THE POPULAR VOTE WHEN SELECTING A
PRESIDENT -- RISKS AN ELECTION DISASTER
Bradford Plummer, "The Indefensible Electoral College," MOTHER JONES, 10-8-04,
http://motherjones.com/politics/2004/10/indefensible-electoral-college, accessed 10-3-11.
Under the electoral college system, voters vote not for the president, but for a slate of electors, who in turn elect
the president. If you lived in Texas, for instance, and wanted to vote for Kerry, you'd vote for a slate of 34
Democratic electors pledged to Kerry. On the off-chance that those electors won the statewide election, they
would go to Congress and Kerry would get 34 electoral votes. Who are the electors? They can be anyone not
holding public office. Who picks the electors in the first place? It depends on the state. Sometimes state
conventions, sometimes the state party's central committee, sometimes the presidential candidates themselves.
Can voters control whom their electors vote for? Not always. Do voters sometimes get confused about the
electors and vote for the wrong candidate? Sometimes. The single best argument against the electoral college is
what we might call the disaster factor. The American people should consider themselves lucky that the 2000
fiasco was the biggest election crisis in a century; the system allows for much worse. Consider that state
legislatures are technically responsible for picking electors, and that those electors could always defy the will of
the people. Back in 1960, segregationists in the Louisiana legislature nearly succeeded in replacing the
Democratic electors with new electors who would oppose John F. Kennedy. (So that a popular vote for Kennedy
would not have actually gone to Kennedy.) In the same vein, "faithless" electors have occasionally refused to
vote for their party's candidate and cast a deciding vote for whomever they please. This year, one Republican
elector in West Virginia has already pledged not to vote for Bush; imagine if more did the same. Oh, and what if
a state sends two slates of electors to Congress? It happened in Hawaii in 1960. Luckily, Vice President Richard
Nixon, who was presiding over the Senate, validated only his opponent's electors, but he made sure to do so
"without establishing a precedent." What if it happened again?
2.
ELECTORS ARE NOT BOUND -- THEY CAN VOTE FOR WHOEVER THEY WANT
Sanford Levinson, Professor, Law, University of Texas, OUR UNDEMOCRATIC CONSTITUTION, 2006,
p.93.
This episode underlines not only the potential mischief of Electoral College deadlocks, but also the fact that
electors seemingly remain free, as a constitutional matter, to adhere to the original understanding of the college
and to vote according to their own judgment rather than slavishly to follow the party line. There were many
reports in the runup George W. Bush with the national plurality and Al Gore with a slender electoral vote
majority, that Republicans were prepared to put great pressure on Democratic electors to switch their votes and
recognize the alleged desire of the people for a Bush presidency. Needless to say, they did not have to test this
strategy.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
10
NOVEMBER 2011
DIRECT ELECTION SUPERIOR: ELECTOR INFIDELITY cont'd
3.
THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE IS SIMPLY RECKLESS -- IS A CONSTITUTIONAL DISASTER WAITING
TO HAPPEN
Sanford Levinson, Professor, Law, University of Texas, OUR UNDEMOCRATIC CONSTITUTION, 2006,
p.94-95.
Professor Edwards notes a wild-card contained even within the notion of one state, one vote. States do not exist
as "real" entities; only the individual representatives do. So how would the decision as to the state's vote actually
be made? One might think the answer is by majority vote of the state's representatives, though obvious problems
are created if the delegation is split. (If a state does not agree on whom to vote for, it simply fails to cast a ballot
in the House, though this could still work, in effect, to deny a candidate the absolute majority of states needed
for election.) But what if, in a very close state, representatives from districts that voted for X even though the
state at large voted for Y decided to honor the preferences of their constituents -- who, after all, will be casting
judgment on them in the next election -- instead of remaining loyal to their political party? The opportunities for
mischief are great. One can easily imagine the kinds of promises that would be made to potential switchers,
given the stakes of the decision. Any supporter of this aspect of the Electoral College system is all too similar to
a heavy drinker who blithely speeds down the highway because, after all, he got home safely on other such
occasions. That would be justly recognized as gross -- indeed, criminal -- negligence and wanton disregard for
the risk to human life when the almost inevitable accident does take place. Americans should be equally
indignant about the wanton recklessness buried within what may appear to be mere constitutional technicalities.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
11
NOVEMBER 2011
DIRECT ELECTION SUPERIOR: ELECTORAL TIE/HOUSE ELECTION
1.
HOUSE ELECTION PROCEDURES UNDER THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE ARE PROFOUNDLY
ANTI-DEMOCRATIC
George C. Edwards, Professor, Political Science, Texas A&M University, WHY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE
IS BAD FOR AMERICA, 2005, p.55.
If the presidential and vice presidential candidates fail to receive a simple majority of electoral college votes, the
Twelfth Amendment provides that the House of Representatives chooses the president and the Senate chooses
the vice president in a process known as "contingent" election (contingent upon the absence of a majority in the
electoral college). There have been two contingent elections for president in our history, following the elections
of 1800 and 1824. Very minor shifts of popular votes in the nation, however, would have sent a number of other
elections to the Congress for decision. In the House, a majority of twenty-six or more state votes is required to
elect a president; in the Senate, a majority of fifty-one or more votes is required to elect a vice president.
Although a superficial reading of these rules suggests the operation of majority rule, this process actually
represents the most egregious violation of democratic principles in the American political system.
2.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE CREATES A STRONG RISK OF A TIE -- WOULD BE A POLITICAL DEBACLE
Bradford Plummer, "The Indefensible Electoral College," MOTHER JONES, 10-8-04,
http://motherjones.com/politics/2004/10/indefensible-electoral-college, accessed 10-3-11.
Perhaps most worrying is the prospect of a tie in the electoral vote. In that case, the election would be thrown to
the House of Representatives, where state delegations vote on the president. (The Senate would choose the
vice-president.) Because each state casts only one vote, the single representative from Wyoming, representing
500,000 voters, would have as much say as the 55 representatives from California, who represent 35 million
voters. Given that many voters vote one party for president and another for Congress, the House's selection can
hardly be expected to reflect the will of the people. And if an electoral tie seems unlikely, consider this: In 1968,
a shift of just 41,971 votes would have deadlocked the election; In 1976, a tie would have occurred if a mere
5,559 voters in Ohio and 3,687 voters in Hawaii had voted the other way. The election is only a few swing
voters away from catastrophe.
3.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE COULD CREATE HAVOC IF THINGS GO WRONG
NEW YORK TIMES, "Abolish the Electoral College," editorial, 8-29-04,
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/29/opinion/29sun1.html, accessed 10-4-11.
Those are the problems we have already experienced. The arcane rules governing the Electoral College have the
potential to create havoc if things go wrong. Electors are not required to vote for the candidates they are pledged
to, and if the vote is close in the Electoral College, a losing candidate might well be able to persuade a small
number of electors to switch sides. Because there are an even number of electors -- one for every senator and
House member of the states, and three for the District of Columbia -- the Electoral College vote can end in a tie.
There are several plausible situations in which a 269-269 tie could occur this year. In the case of a tie, the
election goes to the House of Representatives, where each state delegation gets one vote -- one for Wyoming's
500,000 residents and one for California's 35.5 million. The Electoral College's supporters argue that it plays an
important role in balancing relations among the states, and protecting the interests of small states. A few years
ago, this page was moved by these concerns to support the Electoral College. But we were wrong. The small
states are already significantly over-represented in the Senate, which more than looks out for their interests. And
there is no interest higher than making every vote count.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
12
NOVEMBER 2011
DIRECT ELECTION SUPERIOR: ELECTORAL TIE/HOUSE ELECTION cont'd
4.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE IS A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS WAITING TO HAPPEN
Sanford Levinson, Professor, Law, University of Texas, OUR UNDEMOCRATIC CONSTITUTION, 2006,
p.91.
Yale law professor Akhil Reed Amar wrote in 1998 that the Electoral College was "A Constitutional Accident
Waiting to Happen." The accident to which Amar was referring was the selection by the Electoral College of the
loser in the national vote. Writing in 1998, Amar could have had no idea that it would happen in 2000. He
advocated the replacement of the Electoral College mechanism with a national election in which voters would
cast what is called a single transferable vote, "with voters listing their second and third choices on the ballot, in
effect combining the 'first heat' and 'runoff' elections into a single transaction." This has the virtue of producing
someone who can plausibly be called the majority's choice, unlike the current system. His arguments were
unanswerable in 1998. That is even more the case today. Consider how deadlocks in the Electoral College are to
be resolved. The answer, according to the Constitution, is that the president is to be chosen by the House of
Representatives on a one state, one vote basis. This provision is a national constitutional crisis just waiting to
happen.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
13
NOVEMBER 2011
DIRECT ELECTION SUPERIOR: FLYOVER STATES
1.
THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE WARPS OUR POLITICAL SYSTEM -- ALLOWS CANDIDATES TO JUST
IGNORE STATES
Michael Waldman, Brennan Center for Justice, A RETURN TO COMMON SENSE: 7 BOLD REFORMS YOU
CAN MAKE TO SAVE OUR FAILED GOVERNMENT, 2008, p.101-102.
All that is true in a year when the system doesn't work -- when the runner-up gets the gold medal. But the truth
is, the Electoral College warps competition and subverts political equality even when it does work. Because
most states are reliably "red"or "blue," candidates focus nearly all their efforts on a few "swing" states. As a
result, many voters never see a campaign ad, receive more than a perfunctory candidate visit, or experience the
mass mobilization and get-out-the-vote fervor of a real campaign. As late as 1976, forty states were tightly
contested, including all the big ones.More recently, though, only about seventeen states were in play by
November. As BusinessWeek notes,"The corn farmer living in Iowa (one of the Sweet Seventeen) is coveted by
both parties and showered with goodies such as ethanol subsidies. But just next door, the wheat grower in
Republican South Dakota is insignificant to Presidential candidates. Ditto the hog farmer in Nebraska, the potato
grower in Idaho, and the rancher in Oklahoma."
2.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE EFFECTIVELY DISENFRANCHISES VOTERS WHO ARE NOT IN "SWING"
STATES
Bradford Plummer, "The Indefensible Electoral College," MOTHER JONES, 10-8-04,
http://motherjones.com/politics/2004/10/indefensible-electoral-college, accessed 10-3-11.
Perhaps most worrying is the prospect of a tie in the electoral vote. In that case, the election would be thrown to
the House of Representatives, where state delegations vote on the president. (The Senate would choose the
vice-president.) Because each state casts only one vote, the single representative from Wyoming, representing
500,000 voters, would have as much say as the 55 representatives from California, who represent 35 million
voters. Given that many voters vote one party for president and another for Congress, the House's selection can
hardly be expected to reflect the will of the people. And if an electoral tie seems unlikely, consider this: In 1968,
a shift of just 41,971 votes would have deadlocked the election; In 1976, a tie would have occurred if a mere
5,559 voters in Ohio and 3,687 voters in Hawaii had voted the other way. The election is only a few swing
voters away from catastrophe.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
14
NOVEMBER 2011
DIRECT ELECTION SUPERIOR: FLYOVER STATES cont'd
3.
WINNER-TAKE-ALL SYSTEM MEANS MOST STATES ARE SIMPLY WRITTEN OFF AND IGNORED
BY THE CAMPAIGNS
Sanford Levinson, Professor, Law, University of Texas, OUR UNDEMOCRATIC CONSTITUTION, 2006,
p.87-88.
Key to understanding contemporary elections is the fact that, with the exception of Maine and Nebraska, the
winner in a given state gets all of a state's electoral votes. Thus, in 2000, Bush received all twenty-five of
Florida's votes, which was enough to give him the four-vote Electoral College victory that propelled him to the
White House. Given that Maine and Nebraska adopted a system whereby one vote is awarded for each
congressional district carried and then two votes for the winner of the statewide vote, it is obvious that the
winner-take-all system is not constitutionally required. Nevertheless, it is the system adopted by forty-eight of
the fifty states and the District of Columbia. It inflicts its own harm on the integrity of the American political
system by creating the phenomenon of "battleground" states, defined as those states, small or large, that are
viewed as close to evenly split between the two parties. This means that "predictable states" are simply written
off, so far as campaigning is concerned. And the battleground is shrinking. A New York Times editorial noted
that, in 1960, " states, with 327 electoral votes, were battleground states." By 2004, "only 13 states, with 159
electoral votes, were." As a result, the vast majority of states -- with a similarly vast majority of the population -become utterly irrelevant in the ostensibly national campaign because their preferences in the national election
are completely predictable. As someone who lives in both Massachusetts and Texas, I saw nothing at all of the
2004 presidential campaign, except in the media. During the 2004 presidential campaign, a full 99 percent of all
advertising expenditures by the two campaigns occurred in only seventeen of the states;14 Florida and Ohio
alone accounted for more than 45 percent ($111. million) of the $235,416,458 spent in all of those states, and
three more states -- Iowa, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin -- brought the total to above 70 percent. Similarly,
Florida and Ohio received substantially more candidate visits (sixty-one and forty-nine, respectively) than did
any other state. Wisconsin received fifteen times as many visits (thirty-one) as did California. New York
received a grand total of one visit. "In short, polling, advertising, and campaigning are not merely skewed
toward about a dozen and a half states in presidential campaigns, but the remaining two thirds of the states are,
for all practical purposes, excluded from the campaign. They are mere spectators in the election process."
4.
OUR CLAIMS ARE EMPIRICALLY TRUE -- THE LAST CAMPAIGN IGNORED 31 OF THE 50 STATES
James L. Brulte, former member of Congress, EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR
ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.xxxvi.
Most states in the union are not in play in Presidential Elections. California, for example, has not voted for a
Republican nominee for President since George H. W. Bush carried the state in 1988. Texas has been reliably
Republican since 1980. In fact only 16 states have been considered swing states in recent presidential elections,
while the remainder are relegated to spectator status. While this might be fine for the partisans who actually run
presidential elections (shrinking the number of states in which their candidates need to compete), it is not good
for the citizens of most of the states in the nation. For example, in 2008 after both parties chose their presidential
candidates, all 300 of the campaign events with major-party nominees took place in just 19 states. And from
September 24th, two days before the first general election debate until election day, 99.74% of all advertising
took place in just 18 states
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
15
NOVEMBER 2011
DIRECT ELECTION SUPERIOR: FLYOVER STATES cont'd
5.
MOST VOTERS WILL END UP BEING IGNORED IN THE 2012 ELECTION
Dean Murray, member, New York State Assembly, EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR
ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.li.
The 2012 presidential election will leave fully two-thirds of the voters in the country wondering what is
happening. When the general election campaign rolls around in the summer and fall of 2012, the presidential
candidates, whoever they are, will ignore voters as they focus their campaigns exclusively on the swing states.
Whether you align yourself with the Tea Party, Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, or Greens, whether you
are conservative, liberal, or moderate, the candidates and the campaign will pass you by unless you live in one of
a handful of states. In both 2004 and 2008, candidates spent 98% of their resources in just 15 closely divided
battleground states. They concentrated over two-thirds of their resources in just six states. Simply put, the
millions and millions of dollars spent advertising and polling and visiting and organizing in this small group of
states means that their votes are more important than those of us who live in fly-over country
6.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE ALLOWS CANDIDATES TO IGNORE 3/4 OF THE STATES
Birch Bayh, former member of Congress, EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING
THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.xxiv.
Today more than ever, the Electoral College system is a disservice to the voters. With the number of
battleground states steadily shrinking, we see candidates and their campaigns focused on fewer and fewer states.
While running for the nation's highest office, candidates in 2004 completely ignored three-quarters of the states,
including California, Texas, and New York, our three most populous states. Why should our national leaders be
elected by only reaching out to 1/4 of our states? It seems inherently illogical, and it is.
7.
VOTES CAST IN 'FLYOVER' STATES ARE IRRELEVANT -- UNDERMINES OUR DEMOCRACY
B. Thomas Golisano, businessperson and founder, Galisano Foundation, EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A
STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE, Third
Edition, 2011, p.xxxix-xl.
Have you noticed how the media categorizes our states into two groups: Battleground and fly-over states? A
battleground state is a state where the vote for candidates is undecided. The state could go either way. A fly-over
state is a state where the outcome is a foregone conclusion for one candidate or the other. Unless you live in one
of the few battleground states, your particular vote doesn't matter. The presidential candidates don't need to
consider your issues as they "fly over" your state on the way to the few states that swing presidential elections.
In 2008, candidates concentrated 98% of their ad money and visits in just 15 states. In summary, we have the
option to guarantee that the choice of the American people wins the election. Every American's vote should
count. Candidates will pay attention to the needs and concerns of all 50 states not just a few battleground states.
And we can do this while preserving the states' power over how we pick our President. The President we choose
represents this entire nation. We should all count when making that choice. This is the world's greatest
democracy. Our presidential election should truly be democratic.
8.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE MEANS THAT MOST STATES ARE IGNORED
Joseph Griffo, member, New York senate, EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR
ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.xli.
Presidential elections should be a time when the entire nation is galvanized into action through a vibrant
democracy because every citizen has a voice in setting the nation's direction for the next four years. Sadly, that is
not the reality. By October, 12 to 15 swing states are all that matters in presidential campaigns. Much of the
nation is shunted into red or blue piles. We in New York know how it feels to be treated as if we were politically
irrelevant: my entire state and its voters are ignored by one party and taken for granted by the other. That's not
the democracy I want to leave as my legacy to the future. I want to help create a vibrant new democracy that
sparks activism instead of abetting apathy.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
16
NOVEMBER 2011
DIRECT ELECTION SUPERIOR: FLYOVER STATES cont'd
9.
MOST VOTERS ARE EFFECTIVELY IGNORED UNDER THE CURRENT SYSTEM
Dean Murray, member, New York State Assembly, EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR
ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.lii.
The current system that allows vast areas of the country to be completely disregarded during the general election
was not one that was envisioned by the Founding Fathers. Forty-eight of the 50 states use the winner-take-all
rule for allocating their electoral votes (as opposed to just three states in the first election). Under this rule, the
candidate who wins the most popular votes in a given state receives all the electoral votes. As a result, the
overwhelming majority of Americans are rendered irrelevant when electing their President because they live in a
"safe state" where the Republican or Democrat candidate for President is comfortably ahead or hopelessly
behind.
10.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE ALLOWS CAMPAIGNS TO IGNORE MOST OF THE STATES
Dr. Robert A. Holmes, Emeritus Distinguished Professor of Political Science, Atlanta University, EVERY
VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL POPULAR
VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.xlviii.
A second major problem of the current system is that both major party candidates regularly ignore about 35 of
the 50 states in their campaigns because the polls show they are either far ahead in some states or way behind
their opponent. Thus, neither candidate has any incentive to campaign in states that are reliably Republican (red)
or Democrat (blue) in voting for presidential candidates. Therefore, candidates spend 98% of their financial
resources and campaign activities in only 15 states that are considered competitive battlegrounds (which, in
practice, means less than a 5% difference in the polls between candidates). And even worse, persons who vote
for the losing candidate in their state have their votes awarded to the winning candidate who receives all of the
Electoral College votes in the state!
11.
CURRENT SYSTEM ALLOWS MOST STATES TO BE IGNORED BY PRESIDENTIAL POLITICKING
Laura Brod, former member, Minnesota House, EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR
ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.xxxiii.
Legislators across this great country -- in red states and blue states, large states and small states -- are supporting
the National Popular Vote Plan because they are bound by one thing: the fact that their states are "fly-over"
states. The great majority of states are effectively ignored in presidential elections. Legislators know this is not
good for their state, their citizens, or their entire slate of candidates down the ballot. In fact, that is not good for
our country generally. Policies important to the citizens of "flyover" states are not as highly prioritized as
policies important to "battleground" states when it comes to governing. Right now, battleground states enjoy
political influence which is less related to the number of their electoral votes and more related to the closeness of
the elections. In order to win electoral votes, candidates care what voters in the few battleground states think and
want far more than they do voters in the many fly-over states. The hunt for electoral votes leads to an elevation
of the importance and perceived immediacy of political and policy issues connected to battleground states.
Meanwhile, policy issues more broadly appealing to citizens throughout the country get set aside. Why should
the status of the economy or a volatile local issue in a battleground state have the potential to determine the
Presidency for the entire country? Why should issues important to the few battleground states get addressed,
while other issues important to the many fly-over states are ignored?
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
17
NOVEMBER 2011
DIRECT ELECTION SUPERIOR: FLYOVER STATES cont'd
12.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE CONCENTRATES CAMPAIGNING INTO A HANDFUL OF STATES
John R. Koza, PhD, Barry Fadem, attorney, Mark Grueskin, attorney, Michael S. Mandell, attorney, Robert
Richie, Executive Director, FairVote, and Joseph F. Zimmerman, Professor, Political Science, SUNY-Albany,
EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL
POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.9.
Most people who follow political news are aware of the fact that presidential campaigns are concentrated on a
tiny handful of battleground states; however, few are aware of the extreme degree of this concentration.
Although there is no single definition of a "battleground" state, these states can be readily identified by
examining where presidential campaigns pay close attention to public opinion, where they spend their
advertising money, and where they campaign. In terms of polling, presidential candidates pay hardly any
attention to the concerns of voters in states that are not closely divided in presidential elections. As Charlie Cook
reported in 2004: "Senior Bush campaign strategist Matthew Dowd pointed out yesterday that the Bush
campaign hadn't taken a national poll in almost two years; instead, it has been polling 18 battleground states."
Kerry similarly pursued an 18-state strategy in 2004.
13.
TWO-THIRDS OF THE STATES ARE EFFECTIVELY EXCLUDED FROM THE CAMPAIGN
John R. Koza, PhD, Barry Fadem, attorney, Mark Grueskin, attorney, Michael S. Mandell, attorney, Robert
Richie, Executive Director, FairVote, and Joseph F. Zimmerman, Professor, Political Science, SUNY-Albany,
EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL
POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.12.
In short, polling, advertising, and campaigning are not merely skewed toward about a dozen and a half states in
presidential campaigns, but the remaining two thirds of the states are, for all practical purposes, excluded from
the campaign. They are mere spectators in the election process. Not surprisingly, this concentration of polling,
advertising, and travel corresponds closely to the states where the presidential election was close. Table 1.3
shows the 19 states in which the two-party vote for President was between 46% and 54% in the 2000 presidential
election, starting with the least Democratic state.
14.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE EFFECTIVELY DISENFRANCHISES VOTERS IN TWO-THIRDS OF THE
STATES
John R. Koza, PhD, Barry Fadem, attorney, Mark Grueskin, attorney, Michael S. Mandell, attorney, Robert
Richie, Executive Director, FairVote, and Joseph F. Zimmerman, Professor, Political Science, SUNY-Albany,
EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL
POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.8.
Voters Are Effectively Disenfranchised in Two Thirds of the States in Presidential Elections. Under the nowprevailing statewide winner-take-all rule, presidential candidates do not campaign in states in which they are far
ahead because they do not receive any additional electoral votes by winning such states by a larger margin.
Similarly, candidates ignore states where they are far behind because they have nothing to gain by losing those
states by a smaller margin. Instead, presidential candidates concentrate their public appearances, organizational
efforts, advertising, polling, and policy attention on states where the outcome of the popular vote is not a
foregone conclusion. In practical political terms, a vote matters in presidential politics only if it is cast in a
closely divided battleground state. To put it another way, the question of whether a voter matters in presidential
politics depends on whether other voters in the voter's own state happen to be closely divided. In the five most
recent presidential elections (1988-2004), about two thirds of the states have been non-competitive, including six
of the nation's 10 most populous states (California, Texas, New York, Illinois, New Jersey, and North Carolina),
12 of the 13 least populous states, and the vast majority of medium-sized states.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
18
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
NOVEMBER 2011
DIRECT ELECTION SUPERIOR: FRAUD
1.
DIRECT POPULAR VOTE WOULD DECREASE INCENTIVES FOR FRAUD
John R. Koza, PhD, Barry Fadem, attorney, Mark Grueskin, attorney, Michael S. Mandell, attorney, Robert
Richie, Executive Director, FairVote, and Joseph F. Zimmerman, Professor, Political Science, SUNY-Albany,
EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL
POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.545-546.
Senator Birch Bayh (D -- Indiana) summed up the concerns about possible fraud in a 1979 Senate speech by
saying: "One of the things we can do to limit fraud is to limit the benefits to be gained by fraud. Under a direct
popular vote system, one fraudulent vote wins one vote in the return. In the electoral college system, one
fraudulent vote could mean 45 electoral votes." In the 1950s and 1960s, accusations of voter fraud by both
political parties were commonplace in Illinois and various other states. In 1960, a switch of 4,430 votes in
Illinois and a switch of 4,782 votes in South Carolina would have given Nixon a majority of the electoral votes.
However, 4,430 votes in Illinois were only a focus of controversy in 1960 because of the statewide
winner-take-all rule. John F. Kennedy led Richard M. Nixon by 118,574 popular votes nationwide. Four or five
thousand votes in two states would not have been decisive in 1960 in terms of changing the national popular
vote. If Nixon had carried Illinois and South Carolina in 1960, he would have won a majority of the votes in the
Electoral College without receiving a majority of the popular votes nationwide. Under a national popular vote,
there would be fewer incentives for fraud and mischief, and the consequences would be less drastic for whatever
fraud and mischief does occur.
2.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE SYSTEM INCREASES THE INCENTIVES FOR VOTER FRAUD
John R. Koza, PhD, Barry Fadem, attorney, Mark Grueskin, attorney, Michael S. Mandell, attorney, Robert
Richie, Executive Director, FairVote, and Joseph F. Zimmerman, Professor, Political Science, SUNY-Albany,
EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL
POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.19.
The six problematic presidential elections in the past six decades (table 1.6) are reminders that the operation of
the winner-take-all system in 51 separate jurisdictions makes razor-thin margins more likely and electoral fraud
more rewarding. As Senator Birch Bayh said in a Senate speech in 1979: "[O]ne of the things we can do to limit
fraud is to limit the benefits to be gained by fraud. "Under a direct popular vote system, one fraudulent vote wins
one vote in the return. In the electoral college system, one fraudulent vote could mean 45 electoral votes, 28
electoral votes."
3.
DIRECT ELECTION DECREASES INCENTIVES FOR FRAUD
George C. Edwards, Professor, Political Science, Texas A&M University, WHY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE
IS BAD FOR AMERICA, 2005, p.124.
These suspicious circumstances occurred under the electoral college. Conversely, under direct election or the
president, it would typically require a large change in votes to alter the national outcome -- even if the electoral
vote would have been very close. Florida in 2000 is a case in point. Anyone wishing to employ fraudulent means
to alter the outcome in the state, and thus the nation, would have had to "steal" only 538 votes. To alter the
outcome oft he vote under direct election would have required fraudulently adding or subtracting approximately
540,000 votes! The vote in individual states is usually closer than the vote in the entire nation. Thus, under direct
election, fraud and accidental circumstances can only affect the relatively few votes directly involved. Direct
election would create a disincentive for fraud, because altering an election outcome through fraud would require
an organized effort of proportions never witnessed in the United States. And because no one in any state could
know that his or her efforts at fraud would make a difference in the election, there would be little reason to risk
trying.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
19
NOVEMBER 2011
DIRECT ELECTION SUPERIOR: FRAUD cont'd
4.
DIRECT ELECTION WOULD NOT ENCOURAGE VOTER FRAUD
John R. Koza, PhD, Barry Fadem, attorney, Mark Grueskin, attorney, Michael S. Mandell, attorney, Robert
Richie, Executive Director, FairVote, and Joseph F. Zimmerman, Professor, Political Science, SUNY-Albany,
EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL
POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.544-545.
MYTH: Fraud and mischief would be magnified under a national popular vote.
QUICK ANSWER: * Under the current state-by-state winner-take-all system, there are huge incentives and
major consequences for fraud and mischief, because a small number of popular votes can swing a large number
of electoral votes. * The two conditions for successfully carrying out electoral fraud are that a very small number
of people can have a large effect. Only the current system offers that.
5.
FRAUD INCENTIVES ARE THE SAME UNDER EITHER SYSTEM
John R. Koza, PhD, Barry Fadem, attorney, Mark Grueskin, attorney, Michael S. Mandell, attorney, Robert
Richie, Executive Director, FairVote, and Joseph F. Zimmerman, Professor, Political Science, SUNY-Albany,
EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL
POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.545.
The potential for political fraud and mischief is not uniquely associated with either the current system or a
national popular vote. In fact, the current state-by-state winner-take-all system magnifies the incentives for fraud
and mischief because all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who receives a bare plurality of
the popular votes in each state. Under the current system, the national outcome can be affected by mischief in
one of the closely divided battleground states (e.g., by placing insufficient or defective voting equipment into the
other party's precincts, or by selectively and overzealously purging voter rolls).
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
20
NOVEMBER 2011
DIRECT ELECTION SUPERIOR: LARGE STATES
1.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE LIMITS THE INFLUENCE OF LARGE STATES ON THE ELECTORAL
OUTCOME
John R. Koza, PhD, Barry Fadem, attorney, Mark Grueskin, attorney, Michael S. Mandell, attorney, Robert
Richie, Executive Director, FairVote, and Joseph F. Zimmerman, Professor, Political Science, SUNY-Albany,
EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL
POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.14.
Because each state receives one electoral vote for each of its U.S. Representatives, the Founding Fathers
expected that the Constitution's formula for allocating electoral votes would give the most populous states the
greatest amount of influence in presidential elections. Glances at tables 1.1 through 1.4 and figure 1.1 show that
the Founders did not achieve this objective. Large states are not necessarily important in presidential elections.
Six of the nation's 10 most populous states (California, Texas, New York, Illinois, New Jersey, and North
Carolina) are non-competitive in presidential elections. Non-competitive states -- regardless of their size or
number of electoral votes -- simply do not matter in presidential elections. The Founders' intended allocation of
political influence in favor of the most populous states was not achieved because of the cumulative effect of the
nearly universal adoption by the states of the winner-take-all rule. Political power resides in the scattered
collection of states of various sizes where the popular vote happens to be closely divided -- that is, the
battleground states. In short, the Founders' attempt to allocate political influence was trumped by the decisions -taken separately by the individual states -- to adopt the winner-take-all rule.
2.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE DOES NOT EMPIRICALLY HELP BIG STATES -- SUFFER "SPECTATOR"
STATUS
John R. Koza, PhD, Barry Fadem, attorney, Mark Grueskin, attorney, Michael S. Mandell, attorney, Robert
Richie, Executive Director, FairVote, and Joseph F. Zimmerman, Professor, Political Science, SUNY-Albany,
EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL
POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.22-23.
The argument that the Electoral College confers an enormous amount of influence on the most populous states is
another superficially plausible and arithmetically correct argument that simply does not reflect political reality.
A large state (such as California, Texas, or New York) receives electoral votes approximately in direct
proportion to its population. The Constitution allocates 81% of the electoral votes according to population. If
size mattered, the nation's three most populous states (California, Texas, and New York) would be at center stage
in presidential elections. But this is not the case. The political reality is that these three largest states suffer from
the same spectator status as the 12 noncompetitive small states -- none has mattered in presidential elections for
decades. If, hypothetically, California, Texas, and New York were to suddenly each acquire 10 extra electoral
votes, they still would not matter in presidential elections. Presidential candidates would continue to take the
non-competitive states for granted and to concentrate on the closely divided battleground states.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
21
NOVEMBER 2011
DIRECT ELECTION SUPERIOR: LEGITIMACY
-
DIRECT VOTE WILL INCREASE THE LEGITIMACY OF ELECTIONS
Ray Haynes, member, California State Assembly, EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR
ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.xlv.
Second, it will add more legitimacy to the outcome of the presidential election. People still don't really
understand how someone can win an election without winning the most votes. No other election in the country
works that way. Governors, Senators, and State Legislators throughout the country win office by winning the
most votes. People understand that, and do not question that outcome. The National Popular Vote proposal
coincides with the beliefs of most voters on how elections should be decided
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
22
NOVEMBER 2011
DIRECT ELECTION SUPERIOR: MINORITY CANDIDATE VICTORIES
1.
ELECTION OUTCOMES EMPIRICALLY DO NOT REFLECT THE NATIONAL VOTE -- WILL
CONTINUE TO BE A PROBLEM IN CONTEMPORARY ELECTIONS
John R. Koza, PhD, Barry Fadem, attorney, Mark Grueskin, attorney, Michael S. Mandell, attorney, Robert
Richie, Executive Director, FairVote, and Joseph F. Zimmerman, Professor, Political Science, SUNY-Albany,
EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL
POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.16-18.
Of the 55 presidential elections between 1789 and 2004, there have been four elections -- approximately once
every five decades -- in which the candidate with the most popular votes nationwide did not win the Presidency
(table 1.5). In the past six decades, there have been six presidential elections in which a shift of a relatively small
number of votes in one or two states would have elected a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote
nationwide. In 1976, for example, Jimmy Carter led Gerald Ford by 1,682,970 votes nationwide; however, a
shift of 3,687 votes in Hawaii and 5,559 votes in Ohio would have elected Ford. As shown in table 1.6, there has
been an average of one problematic election each decade. In 2004, President George W. Bush was ahead by
about 3,500,000 popular votes nationwide on election night; however, the outcome of the election remained in
doubt until Wednesday morning because it was not clear which candidate was going to win Ohio's 20 electoral
votes. In the end, Bush received 118,785 more popular votes than Kerry in Ohio, thus winning all of the state's
20 electoral votes and ensuring his reelection. However, if 59,393 Bush voters in Ohio had switched in 2004,
Kerry would have ended up with 272 electoral votes (two more than the 270 required to be elected to the
Presidency). The 59,393 Bush voters in Ohio were decisive, whereas Bush's 3,500,000-vote nationwide lead was
irrelevant. The illusion of closeness in 2004 resulted from the statewide winner-take-all system used in Ohio -not because the election was genuinely close on the basis of the nationwide popular vote. Given the relative
closeness of the five most recent presidential elections and the current closely divided political environment,
additional problems with the electoral system should be considered probable. Interestingly, the 1991 book
Wrong Winner: The Coming Debacle in the Electoral College by David Abbott and James P. Levine predicted
that emerging political and demographic trends would lead to an increasing number of elections in which the
candidate with the most popular votes nationwide would not win a majority in the Electoral College.
2.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE ALLOWS A CANDIDATE WITH FEWER VOTES TO WIN THE ELECTION -HAS HAPPENED BEFORE
Saul Anuzis, member, Republican National Committee, EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN
FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.xxix.
The shortcomings of the current system stem from the winner-take-all rule (that is, awarding all of a state's
electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state). Because of the
winner-take-all rule, a candidate can win the presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide.
This has occurred in four of the nation's 56 presidential elections. As an example, a shift of fewer than 60,000
votes in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over three million
votes. This is a state rights issue and we, the people, have the right to decide how and who is elected president.
3.
CURRENT SYSTEM ALLOWS A CANDIDATE WITH FEWER VOTES TO WIN THE ELECTION
B. Thomas Golisano, businessperson and founder, Galisano Foundation, EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A
STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE, Third
Edition, 2011, p.xxxix.
Unfortunately the winner-take-all rule creates a problem where the candidate with the most votes can actually
lose the election. Would you call that democratic? We can easily change to a system where the candidate with
the most votes always wins. In fact, the process is already underway. Once states representing a majority of
electoral votes approve, the process will change, and the President will be elected by the national popular vote.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
23
NOVEMBER 2011
DIRECT ELECTION SUPERIOR: MINORITY CANDIDATE VICTORIES cont'd
4.
RECENT ELECTIONS SHOW HOW A CANDIDATE WITH THE MOST VOTES COULD NOT WIN THE
PRESIDENCY
Dr. Robert A. Holmes, Emeritus Distinguished Professor of Political Science, Atlanta University, EVERY
VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL POPULAR
VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.xlvii-xlviii.
In fact, two of the first three elections in the 21st century provide good examples of a major flaw in the current
system. In the 2000 contest, Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore won 537,000 more votes than his
Republican opponent George Bush, but the latter became President. Then in the 2004 election, President Bush
won more than 3 million more popular votes than Democrat John Kerry, but Kerry would have won the
Presidency if he had received only 60,000 more votes in Ohio. The winner-take-all rule (used in 48 states and
Washington, D.C.) awards all of the Electoral-College votes to the candidate who receives the most popular
votes in the state (or the District of Columbia). This method of awarding electoral votes is the primary culprit of
undemocratic outcomes in presidential elections.
5.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE IS FLAWED -- OFTEN SELECTS THE PERSON WHO DID NOT WIN THE
POPULAR VOTE
Sanford Levinson, Professor, Law, University of Texas, OUR UNDEMOCRATIC CONSTITUTION, 2006,
p.87.
The most important of all has been amply covered: the fact that the Electoral College does, with some frequency,
select as president candidates who did not even win a majority of the popular vote and, on at least two occasions
in the last fifty years, the candidate who came in second in the popular vote. One response to this latter point is
that one cannot legitimately infer from the popular vote in the election system we have to a hypothetical vote in
a direct-election system where every person's vote counted equally across the country, which is most certainly
not the case with the Electoral College. The fact is that presidential candidates and their campaign managers are
not trying to win the popular vote, except as an afterthought. They are dedicated to putting together a coalition of
states that will provide a majority of the electoral votes.
6.
WRONG WINNER ELECTIONS ARE COMMON, WILL REMAIN SO IN THE FUTURE UNDER THE
CURRENT SYSTEM
John R. Koza, PhD, Barry Fadem, attorney, Mark Grueskin, attorney, Michael S. Mandell, attorney, Robert
Richie, Executive Director, FairVote, and Joseph F. Zimmerman, Professor, Political Science, SUNY-Albany,
EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL
POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.431.
MYTH: "Wrong winner" elections are rare, and therefore not a problem.
QUICK ANSWER: * Far from being rare, there have been four elections out of the nation's 56 presidential
election in which a candidate has won the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide -- a
failure rate of 1 in 14. * The failure rate is 1 in 7 among non-landslide presidential elections (i.e., elections where
the margin is less than 10%). * The country has experienced a string of six consecutive non-landslide elections
since 1988. Because we appear to be in an era of non-landslide presidential elections, additional "wrong winner"
elections can be expected in the future.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
24
NOVEMBER 2011
DIRECT ELECTION SUPERIOR: MINORITY CANDIDATE VICTORIES cont'd
7.
ADDITIONAL "WRONG WINNER" ELECTIONS ARE LIKELY
John R. Koza, PhD, Barry Fadem, attorney, Mark Grueskin, attorney, Michael S. Mandell, attorney, Robert
Richie, Executive Director, FairVote, and Joseph F. Zimmerman, Professor, Political Science, SUNY-Albany,
EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL
POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.432.
Therefore, it should not be surprising that we have already had one "wrong winner" election in this recent string
of six non-landslide presidential elections. If the country continues to experience non-landslide presidential
elections, we can expect additional "wrong winner" elections. The precariousness of the current state-by-state
winner-take-all system is further highlighted by the fact that a shift of a handful of votes in one or two states
would have elected the second-place candidate in five of the 13 presidential elections since World War II. For
example, in 1976, Jimmy Carter led Gerald Ford by 1,682,970 votes nationwide; however, a shift of 3,687 votes
in Hawaii and 5,559 votes in Ohio would have elected Ford. In 2004, President George W. Bush was ahead by
over 3,000,000 popular votes nationwide on election night; however, the outcome of the election remained in
doubt until Wednesday morning because it was not clear which candidate was going to win Ohio's 20 electoral
votes. In the end, Bush received 118,785 more popular votes than John Kerry in Ohio -- thus winning all of
Ohio's 20 electoral votes and ensuring his re-election. However, if 59,393 voters in Ohio had switched in 2004,
Kerry would have become President (thereby nullifying Bush's lead of 3,000,000 popular votes nationwide).
8.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE THE REAL WINNER FOUR TIMES
Michael Waldman, Brennan Center for Justice, A RETURN TO COMMON SENSE: 7 BOLD REFORMS YOU
CAN MAKE TO SAVE OUR FAILED GOVERNMENT, 2008, p.100.
The Electoral College is the exploding cigar of American politics. Four times, the candidate who won fewer
votes nonetheless has become president. (Political scientists, with rare concision, call this the "wrong winner"
problem.) In 1824, Andrew Jackson won the most total votes, but not enough states to win the Electoral College.
The House of Representatives picked John Quincy Adams instead, after a bitterly alleged "corrupt bargain" with
another candidate. Then, in 1876, Democrat Samuel J. Tilden won more votes than Republican Rutherford B.
Hayes, but not an Electoral College majority. The deadlocked election went to Congress. The deal: Republicans
got the White House, but Democrats got federal troops pulled out of the South, ending Reconstruction and
ushering in ninety years of repression against the former slaves and their descendants. In 1888, Benjamin
Harrison lost the popular vote but won the Electoral College. And in 2000,Al Gore got half a million votes more
than George W. Bush, a wider popular vote margin than Kennedy had to best Nixon -- but with Florida, Bush
won the Electoral College by 271-266.
9.
NEAR MISSES ARE EVEN MORE COMMON
Michael Waldman, Brennan Center for Justice, A RETURN TO COMMON SENSE: 7 BOLD REFORMS YOU
CAN MAKE TO SAVE OUR FAILED GOVERNMENT, 2008, p.101.
Without the melodrama, what would have shocked was simply the fact that the new president had in fact come in
second in the popular vote. Indeed, just before the election, the Republicans had prepared talking points urging
their adherents to say the election was illegitimate if Gore had prevailed without winning the most popular votes.
Near misses are even more common. In 2004, Bush won the national popular vote, but a switch of 60,000 in
Ohio would have elected John Kerry. In 1976, the election would have been thrown into the House of
Representatives with the shift of a few thousand votes in Delaware and Ohio. Any race could turn on such
flukes. And when the House chooses, each state gets one vote, giving empty Idaho the same say as crowded
California. Massive pressure would push lawmakers to back the candidate of their party, not the voters. The
resulting political fracas would dwarf anything seen in a century.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
25
NOVEMBER 2011
DIRECT ELECTION SUPERIOR: MINORITY CANDIDATE VICTORIES cont'd
10.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE DOES NOT ACCURATELY REFLECT THE PUBLIC VOTE
John R. Koza, PhD, Barry Fadem, attorney, Mark Grueskin, attorney, Michael S. Mandell, attorney, Robert
Richie, Executive Director, FairVote, and Joseph F. Zimmerman, Professor, Political Science, SUNY-Albany,
EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL
POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.8-9.
The Current System Does Not Reliably Reflect the Nationwide Popular Vote. The statewide winner-take-all rule
makes it possible for a candidate to win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This
has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections (as detailed in section 1.2.2). In the past six decades, there
have been six presidential elections in which a shift of a relatively small number of votes in one or two states
would have elected (and, of course, in 2000, did elect) a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote
nationwide.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
26
NOVEMBER 2011
DIRECT ELECTION SUPERIOR: MINORITY VOTERS
1.
CANDIDATES WILL PAY MORE ATTENTION TO MINORITIES AND SMALL STATES UNDER
DIRECT ELECTION
George C. Edwards, Professor, Political Science, Texas A&M University, WHY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE
IS BAD FOR AMERICA, 2005, p.120.
Candidates would be much more attentive to small states or minorities under direct election of the president than
they are under the electoral college. (They could hardly be less attentive than they are under the electoral
college.) Under direct election of the president, where votes are not aggregated by state, candidates would have
incentives to appeal to all voters and not just those strategically located in swing states.w An extra citizen's vote
in Massachusetts or Texas would count as much as one in Michigan or Florida. Presidential and vice presidential
candidate Bob Dole explained that under direct election of the president, candidates would have to pay more
attention than the)' do now to areas within states that are now ignored because they are safe for one party or the
other. Thus, under direct election of the president, "The voters in the majority of States would receive greater
attention and the objective of federalism would be served better." Moreover, it is quite feasible for candidates to
spread their attention more evenly across the country. Because the cost of advertising is mainly a function of
market size, it does not cost more to reach ten thousand voters in Wyoming than it docs to reach ten thousand
voters in a neighborhood in Queens or Los Angeles. Actually, it may cost less to reach voters in smaller
communities because larger markets tend to run out of inventory and the price of advertising is bid up.
Politicians know this, even if advocates of the electoral college do nor. That is why in the election of 2000
(within states) the candidates "devoted nearly as much advertising to Yakima as in Seattle, as much to Traverse
City as to Flint, as much to Wausau as to Milwaukee." Direct election of the president would also provide the
incentive for candidates to encourage all their supporters, no matter where they lived, to go to the polls, because
under direct election, ever)' vote counts. Conversely, under the electoral college, it does not matter how many
votes a candidate receives in a state as long as the number is more than the opponent receives. The goal is to win
states, not voters. As Douglas Bailey, the media manager of the 1976 Ford-Dole campaign, put it, "There is a
vast population (outside urban areas), with every vote counting, that you cannot ignore in a direct election."
2.
DIRECT ELECTION WOULD INCREASE CANDIDATE APPEALS TO INTERESTS OF BLACK VOTERS
George C. Edwards, Professor, Political Science, Texas A&M University, WHY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE
IS BAD FOR AMERICA, 2005, p.99.
Under direct election of the president in which all votes are valuable, black voters in the South and in the urban
Northeast, for example, could coalesce their votes and become an effective national bloc. The votes of southern
blacks, in particular, might for the first time be important in determining the election outcome. One reason that
Judith Best, perhaps the best known advocate of the electoral college, supports the status quo is precisely
because it inhibits what she-calls "private minorities" from uniting votes across state lines. The evidence clearly
shows, then, that the argument that the electoral college aids blacks is based on false premises. Although it may
be possible to construct a principled argument that members of a disadvantaged race deserve more say in the
election of the president than members of other races, such an argument is unlikely to win many adherents in the
twenty-first century. It is difficult in a democracy to give people electoral weight based on the Tightness of their
cause.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
27
NOVEMBER 2011
DIRECT ELECTION SUPERIOR: MULTIWARRANT/GENERAL
1.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE IS PROFOUNDLY UNDEMOCRATIC -- MULTIPLE REASONS
George C. Edwards, Professor, Political Science, Texas A&M University, WHY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE
IS BAD FOR AMERICA, 2005, p.31.
The electoral college does not provide a straightforward process for selecting the president. Instead, it can be
extraordinarily complex and has the potential to undo the people's will at many points in the long journey from
the selection of electors to counting their votes in Congress. Faithless electors may fail to vote as the people who
elected them wish. Congress may find it difficult to choose justly between competing slates of electors. It is even
possible, although highly unlikely, that a state legislature could take the choice of the electors away from the
people altogether. The electoral college poses an even more fundamental threat to American democracy,
however.
2.
PRESIDENT SHOULD BE ELECTED VIA DIRECT POPULAR VOTE -- DEFENSES OF THE ELECTORAL
COLLEGE DO NOT HOLD UP
Bradford Plummer, "The Indefensible Electoral College," MOTHER JONES, 10-8-04,
http://motherjones.com/politics/2004/10/indefensible-electoral-college, accessed 10-3-11.
As George C. Edwards III, a professor of political science at Texas A&M university, reminds us in his new
book, Why the Electoral College is Bad for America, "The choice of the chief executive must be the people's,
and it should rest with none other than them." Fans of the electoral college usually admit that the current system
doesn't quite satisfy this principle. Instead, Edwards notes, they change the subject and tick off all the
"advantages" of the electoral college. But even the best-laid defenses of the old system fall apart under close
scrutiny. The electoral college has to go.
3.
THE PRESIDENT NEEDS TO BE ELECTED VIA DIRECT POPULAR VOTE
John Buchanan, former member of Congress, EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR
ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.xxxvi.
The founder of my party, Abraham Lincoln, described the American political system as "Government of the
people, by the people, for the people." Yet in the first presidential election of the twenty-first century, once again
the presidential candidate who won the popular vote lost the election, and the will of the people who cared
enough to be present and voting was frustrated rather than fulfilled. In the next election the then incumbent
President won the popular vote, but a change in the electoral vote of a single state could have cost him the
election. Denying the American people the right to determine by their votes who the President and
Vice-President shall be is a flaw in our system, and one that needs fixing. It is time for "the world's greatest
democracy" to in fact become one at the highest level of elective office as is already the case at all other levels.
As a member of Congress I voted in support of the direct election of the president and nearly saw the system
change during my tenure. At the time it was a controversial idea, but not overburdened by the partisan bickering
so much as regional concerns.
4.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE DISENFRANCHISES EVERY VOTER BEYOND THAT NEEDED TO
ESTABLISH A PLURALITY
Thomas L. Pearce, former state representative, Michigan, EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN
FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.liv.
Of course, Michigan was the victim of a policy that actually rewards presidential candidates for ignoring the
majority of states. The winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes treats election results in more than
thirty states as a foregone conclusion. The result? No campaign stops, no campaign dollars, and no incentive to
represent the needs of Michigan voters at a national level. If every single voter in Michigan had cast his or her
vote for Barack Obama, the outcome would have been exactly the same. The winner-take-all system of awarding
electoral votes effectively disenfranchises every voter beyond those needed to establish a plurality. In 2008, the
people of Michigan spoke, and nobody listened.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
28
NOVEMBER 2011
DIRECT ELECTION SUPERIOR: MULTIWARRANT/GENERAL cont'd
5.
WE SHOULD IGNORE PARTISAN CONCERNS, AND FOCUS ON DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES WHEN
EVALUATING THE COLLEGE
John Buchanan, former member of Congress, EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR
ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.xxxvi.
Today, any discussions, although there have been too few, seem to give rise to partisan concerns. Yet this is not,
nor should it be, either a regional or a partisan matter. We should rather be guided by patriotism and principle to
do what is right for our country and for the American people as a whole. When we look at the method by which
we elect the president, we should have a system that is fair, guarantees votes are counted equally, puts residents
of each state on equal footing, and promotes vote-seeking across the nation
6.
ELECTED OFFICIALS SHAPE THEIR CAMPAIGNS AROUND THE RULES
Ray Haynes, member, California State Assembly, EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR
ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.xlii.
Elected officials know how to get elected to office. They know how to raise the necessary resources to get their
message out to the voters. They know where to find the people who will work on their campaigns. They know
what messages to communicate to voters, and how to communicate those messages. They know the rules that
determine what they must do to get elected. The "science" of getting elected requires those who pursue public
office to know the rules of elections, discover how voters vote, where their likely voters are located, what
messages will persuade these voters to vote, and how best to communicate those messages to voters. It requires
them to know where to find the money to communicate those messages, where to find the people who will help
communicate those messages, and where those messages can be most effectively communicated to maximize the
chances of getting elected. The art of politics is marshaling the resources available, and using the knowledge
obtained, and the rules of the election, to maximize the opportunity for getting elected. Elected officials, and
those who help them get elected, spend a lot of time and effort attempting to get elected. They have limited
resources (reports to the contrary notwithstanding). Therefore, no one can expect them to spend time or money
in places where the expenditure of financial, public relations, or operational resources will not affect the
outcome of an election. They work within the rules provided to communicate with the voters whose votes will
make a difference in the election in the most effective way.
7.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE IS SIMPLY INDEFENSIBLE
Michael Waldman, Brennan Center for Justice, A RETURN TO COMMON SENSE: 7 BOLD REFORMS YOU
CAN MAKE TO SAVE OUR FAILED GOVERNMENT, 2008, p.104.
The Electoral College is such an obvious affront to basic democracy that its backers have a hard time finding
arguments to defend it. Political scientist Norman Ornstein argues,"Three (or four) crises out of more than 50
presidential elections is remarkably small." Few of the assertions, even if true, are strong enough to overcome
the fact that the winning candidate can lose. For example, defenders insist the system protects the power of states
with less population. In a technical sense, this may be true. More accurately, though, the system protects swing
states, not small states. Candidates do little campaigning in reliably Republican Idaho or Democratic Rhode
Island. More, the focus on small versus large states risks confusing legal jurisdictions with actual people. States
aren't living beings; people are. (As one website drolly puts it,"Dirt Don't Vote.") It is far more important that
citizens have their voices heard than that states do. Gun owners or women or students or Evangelical Christians
live all over the country -- but only the ones in Ohio or Florida get wooed and get organized. Supporters also
note that the Electoral College helps create consensus and confer legitimacy by making narrow victories seem
wider than they are. True, except for when the system demolishes legitimacy by picking the wrong candidate.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
29
NOVEMBER 2011
DIRECT ELECTION SUPERIOR: MULTIWARRANT/GENERAL cont'd
8.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE UNDERMINES OUR DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT
Sanford Levinson, Professor, Law, University of Texas, OUR UNDEMOCRATIC CONSTITUTION, 2006,
p.82-83.
It is the Electoral College that supplies the decisive and overriding reason for rejecting the status quo and
supporting a convention entitled to propose significant revisions. It is an undemocratic and perverse part of the
American system of government that ill serves the United States. I mentioned earlier the bogus nature of the
claim that the president of the United States is necessarily "the people's choice." This is obviously clearest in
circumstances like 1960 and 2000, when Richard Nixon and Al Gore, respectively, won pluralities of the vote
over their winning opponents, John F. Kennedy and George W. Bush. But it is also important to note that neither
Nixon nor Gore could have claimed to be the choice of a majority of the voters. Nixon's 34,108,147 votes might
have been more than Kennedy's 34,049,976 votes, but they still constituted only 49.3 percent of the entire vote.
Similarly, Gore might have beaten Bush by 539,893 votes, but Gore's overall percentage was even less than
Nixon's, 48.3 percent. Ironically, Richard Nixon would ascend to the presidency in 1968 with 43.4 percent of the
popular vote, which was otherwise split between the Democrat Hubert H. Humphrey (42.7 percent) and the
egregious George C. Wallace, the segregationist governor of Alabama, who received almost 10 million of the
roughly 73.5 million total votes. Amazingly, Nixon is not even the winner in the "least popular among successful
candidates" sweepstakes. Bill Clinton received only 43 percent of the popular vote in 1992 (he would rise to
49.2 percent in 1996). But even Clinton is well ahead of Woodrow Wilson, who in 1912 became president with
only 41.9 percent of the popular vote, and, the all-time winner, Abraham Lincoln, who swept the electoral vote
(59.1 percent) while winning only 39.8 percent of the popular vote. Whatever else may be said about these
presidents, that they received a popular mandate to govern is most certainly not one of them.
9.
THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE IS AN AFFRONT TO OUR DEMOCRATIC IDEALS -- NEEDS TO BE
ABOLISHED
Sanford Levinson, Professor, Law, University of Texas, OUR UNDEMOCRATIC CONSTITUTION, 2006,
p.95.
The Electoral College is especially important to this book for two reasons. The first is obvious. It is a good and
sufficient reason for any citizen who cares about basic democratic values and even the preservation of political
stability to support the referendum authorizing a new convention. It also illustrates, all too well, the extent to
which the Constitution functions as an iron cage preventing necessary change. For the fact is that virtually no
one defends the one state, one vote system described above. I expect vigorous argument against many of my
critiques in this book, but not with regard to this one. In an 1823 letter, James Madison wrote: The present rule
of voting for President by the House of Representatives is so great a departure from the Republican principle of
numerical equality, and even from the federal rule which qualifies the numerical by a State equality, and is so
pregnant also with a mischievous tendency in practice, that an amendment of the Constitution on this point is
justly called for by all its considerate and best friends. No one has ever put it better. Yet nothing has been done
in the intervening 180 years to guard against this "mischievous tendency," even after the 1824 election the very
next year exposed all of the problems: John Quincy Adams, who had received both fewer popular votes and
fewer electoral votes than did his principal adversary, Andrew Jackson, nonetheless prevailed. The reason is that
Henry Clay, who had come in fourth and therefore was not among the top three candidates who were available to
the House for consideration, threw his support to Adams and, as a consequence, became secretary of state.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
30
NOVEMBER 2011
DIRECT ELECTION SUPERIOR: NATIONAL CAMPAIGNING
1.
DIRECT POPULAR VOTE WOULD MAKE EVERYONE RELEVANT -- NO MORE SPECTATOR STATES
John R. Koza, PhD, Barry Fadem, attorney, Mark Grueskin, attorney, Michael S. Mandell, attorney, Robert
Richie, Executive Director, FairVote, and Joseph F. Zimmerman, Professor, Political Science, SUNY-Albany,
EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL
POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.430.
MYTH: A national popular vote will simply make a different group of states irrelevant in presidential elections.
QUICK ANSWER: * Candidates must solicit every potential voter in an election in which the winner is the
candidate who receives the most popular votes. Every vote, regardless of location, would matter equally under a
national popular vote. * The best predictor of how campaigns would be run under a national popular vote is to
look at how campaigns are currently conducted for offices where the winner is the candidate who receives the
most votes. For example, in serious gubernatorial campaigns, the candidates campaign throughout the entire
constituency. * When it is suggested that a national popular vote will make a different group of states irrelevant
in presidential elections, the obvious question is "Which two-thirds of the United States would a presidential
candidate totally ignore in an election in which the winner is the candidate who receives the most popular
votes?" Which 200,000,000 Americans would a presidential candidate totally ignore under a national popular
vote?
2.
DIRECT ELECTION WOULD END SPECTATOR STATUS -- CURRENT STATEWIDE ELECTIONS
PROVE
John R. Koza, PhD, Barry Fadem, attorney, Mark Grueskin, attorney, Michael S. Mandell, attorney, Robert
Richie, Executive Director, FairVote, and Joseph F. Zimmerman, Professor, Political Science, SUNY-Albany,
EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL
POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.430-431.
We do not have to speculate on how a campaign would be conducted in an election in which the winner is the
candidate who receives the most popular votes, because there is ample evidence available to answer this
question. We know, from actual experience, that in serious campaigns for governor or U.S. Senator, candidates
pay attention to their entire constituency. The reason is that every vote is equal in winning an election in which
the winner is the candidate who receives the most popular votes. Focus, for a moment, on a state's congressional
districts (because congressional districts within a state contain approximately equal numbers of people). Serious
candidates for governor do not limit their campaigns to just one-third of the state's congressional districts while
totally ignoring two-thirds of the districts. Taking Missouri as a specific example, it would be inconceivable for
a serious candidate for governor to campaign only in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd congressional districts, while totally
ignoring the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th districts. Yet, two-thirds of the voters of the United States are ignored
in every presidential election. In the 2008 post-convention general election campaign, candidates concentrated
over two-thirds of their campaign events and ad money in just six states, and 98% in 15 states. When it is
suggested that a national popular vote will make a different group of states irrelevant in presidential elections,
the obvious question is "Which two-thirds of the United States would a presidential candidate totally ignore?"
Under the National Popular Vote plan, the winner would be the candidate who receives the most popular votes in
the entire country. Every vote would be equally important. Which 200,000,000 Americans (in a nation of
308,000,000 people) would a presidential candidate totally ignore?
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
31
NOVEMBER 2011
DIRECT ELECTION SUPERIOR: NATIONAL CAMPAIGNING cont'd
3.
DIRECT ELECTION FORCES CANDIDATES TO TAKE THEIR CASE TO THE ENTIRE NATION
George C. Edwards, Professor, Political Science, Texas A&M University, WHY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE
IS BAD FOR AMERICA, 2005, p.155.
In addition, direct election of the president would not diminish benefits from the electoral college that, as we
have seen, do not exist. Those who worry that direct election would change the nature of campaigns arc correct.
It would. Candidates would actually have to do what advocates of the electoral college say they want candidates
to do. They would have to take their case to the entire nation -- instead of focusing on a few battleground states
as the)' do now. Incentives for personal visits would remain the same -- but these visits would be more dispersed
around the nation. Since candidates' campaign appearances are virtually always before party enthusiasts, they
have little to do with generating voter interest anyway. And how could a nationwide campaign generate less
voter interest than a campaign that ignores approximately two-thirds of the country? Similarly, there is no reason
to be concerned that a national campaign would force candidates to rely more on technology. In the twenty-first
century, candidates rely almost entirely on television and direct mail -- under the electoral college -- to reach
voters. It is true that it would cost more to campaign across the nation than in only a few battleground states. We
actually spend very little on the general election for president, much less than one dollar per eligible voter.
Surely the richest nation in the world can afford a bit more to select its chief executive.
4.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE SYSTEM GIVES DISPROPORTIONATE POWER TO VOTERS IN STATES
WITH QUIRKY POPULATIONS
Sanford Levinson, Professor, Law, University of Texas, OUR UNDEMOCRATIC CONSTITUTION, 2006,
p.89-90.
Much of the previous chapter was devoted to the indefensible advantages given to low-population states. Here,
too, these states exert special and equally indefensible power. Of course, there is a linkage because the source of
that power is the bonus that each state gets for having two senators, in addition to however many representatives
it has. Thus Wyoming, with 0.2 percent of the national population, has three times that weight in the Electoral
College, as do Alaska and the District of Columbia. California, on the other hand, with 12.2 percent of the
national population, controls only 10.2 percent of the Electoral College votes. My home state of Texas, with 7.6
percent of the population, has only 6.3 percent of the electoral votes. Only five states -- Arizona, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Missouri, Wisconsin -- enjoy parity between their percentage of the national population and their
percentage in the Electoral College. As one would readily expect, every single state with 2.8 percent of the
national population (North Carolina) or higher has less power in the Electoral College than pure proportionality
would dictate.
5.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE GIVES TOO MUCH POWER TO VOTERS IN SMALL STATES
Sanford Levinson, Professor, Law, University of Texas, OUR UNDEMOCRATIC CONSTITUTION, 2006,
p.90.
Consider the fact that in the 2000 election Al Gore won New Mexico (five electoral votes) while losing
Wyoming, Alaska, and North Dakota (nine electoral votes). According to the 2000 census figures, New Mexico
had a total population of 1,823,821, while the total population of the three other states was 1,768,993. Thus,
Bush gained almost twice the number of electoral votes by winning three states with a total population less than
New Mexico's. One of the original consequences of the Electoral College was to give a bonus to the slave states,
inasmuch as three-fifths of the numbers of their distinctly nonvoting and unrepresented slaves were nonetheless
counted as part of the population to establish how many representatives (and, therefore, how many electoral
votes) each state got. Thomas Jefferson, for example, would have lost the 1800 election to John Adams had he
not been the beneficiary of the slave bonus. We are now blessedly free of the awarding of bonuses to
slaveholders. It is not at all clear, however, that the smallstate bonus is any more defensible. It may be part of our
political tradition, but then, so was slavery.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
32
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
NOVEMBER 2011
DIRECT ELECTION SUPERIOR: NO OTHER
NATION USES ELECTORAL COLLEGE
1.
THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE IS SO FLAWED THAT NO OTHER COUNTRY USES IT
Sanford Levinson, Professor, Law, University of Texas, OUR UNDEMOCRATIC CONSTITUTION, 2006,
p.83.
As the United States is launched on a crusade to export "democracy" around the world, it is well worth asking
whether any country committed to democracy would emulate the American process of selecting presidents. One
need not speculate on the answer. No country has, for the good and sufficient reason that our system has little, if
anything, to do with adherence to democratic values. So now, let us make our descent into the belly o f the beast,
the Electoral College, for a demonstration of why this is so.
2.
NO OTHER NATION USES ANYTHING CLOSE TO THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE
Dr. Robert A. Holmes, Emeritus Distinguished Professor of Political Science, Atlanta University, EVERY
VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL POPULAR
VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.xlix.
Fortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court declared the county unit system used to elect the Governor of Georgia
unconstitutional because it violated the political equality doctrine of "one person, one vote." Yet in the 21st
century, the President of the United States is still elected by an inequitable Electoral-College vote system that is
clearly inequitable. It is important to know that none of the more than 200 nations in the world uses such an
anti-democratic method to elect their head of state.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
33
NOVEMBER 2011
DIRECT ELECTION SUPERIOR: PUBLIC SUPPORTS
1.
SEVENTY-FIVE PERCENT OF THE PUBLIC SUPPORTS DIRECT ELECTION
B. Thomas Golisano, businessperson and founder, Galisano Foundation, EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A
STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE, Third
Edition, 2011, p.xxxix.
Seventy-five percent of voters polled in the United States think the way we elect our President should be
changed. Under our current system, a candidate can win the White House without receiving the most votes
nationwide. This has actually happened a number of times in our history, and it is likely to happen again. The
current system awards all the state's electoral votes to the candidate who gets the most votes in that particular
state. This is called the "winner-take-all" rule. By the way, this method of awarding electoral votes is not a part
of the U.S. Constitution. It is strictly a matter of state laws that were adopted on a piecemeal, state-by-state basis.
2.
OVERWHELMING PUBLIC MAJORITIES SUPPORT DIRECT ELECTION
Dr. Robert A. Holmes, Emeritus Distinguished Professor of Political Science, Atlanta University, EVERY
VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL POPULAR
VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.xlix.
The national popular vote method of electing the President provides a new innovative and creative method that
will produce much-needed reform that will guarantee that all future Presidents will be chosen based on the
candidate receiving the most national popular votes cast in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Recent
polls taken between 2008 and 2010 in 32 states show that the American electorate overwhelmingly supports the
idea of the direct election of the President by a national electorate, not 51 separate political jurisdictions. In
every one of the 32 states where polls were conducted, there was a minimum of 67% who favored the new
system over the current method. Also, the actions of many state legislators have already resulted in six states and
the District of Columbia enacting the National Popular Vote bill (over a quarter of the electoral votes required).
The bill has been approved by 30 legislative bodies in 20 states
3.
STRONG PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR ABOLISHING THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE -- 60%
Bradford Plummer, "The Indefensible Electoral College," MOTHER JONES, 10-8-04,
http://motherjones.com/politics/2004/10/indefensible-electoral-college, accessed 10-3-11.
What have Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Bob Dole, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the AFL-CIO all, in
their time, agreed on? Answer: Abolishing the electoral college! They're not alone; according to a Gallup poll in
2000, taken shortly after Al Gore -- thanks to the quirks of the electoral college -- won the popular vote but lost
the presidency, over 60 percent of voters would prefer a direct election to the kind we have now. This year
voters can expect another close election in which the popular vote winner could again lose the presidency. And
yet, the electoral college still has its defenders. What gives?
4.
THERE IS OVERWHELMING PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR ABOLISHING THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE
Birch Bayh, former member of Congress, EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING
THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.xxiii-xxiv.
Unfortunately, Congress has continued to block this basic reform that has long-standing, overwhelming public
support. Gallup polls have shown strong public support for nationwide popular election of the President for over
five decades. Numerous other polls have confirmed a high level of public support for this reform. Polls
consistently show 60-80% of Americans believe they should be able to cast votes in the direct election of the
President. That is why I unequivocally support this new strategy to provide for the direct election of the
President and Vice President. This new approach is consistent with the Constitution but does not rely on the
arduous process of a Constitutional Amendment.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
34
NOVEMBER 2011
DIRECT ELECTION SUPERIOR: PUBLIC SUPPORTS cont'd
5.
THERE IS STRONG SUPPORT FOR REFORM AMONG THE PUBLIC AND ELECTED OFFICIALS
John R. Koza, PhD, Barry Fadem, attorney, Mark Grueskin, attorney, Michael S. Mandell, attorney, Robert
Richie, Executive Director, FairVote, and Joseph F. Zimmerman, Professor, Political Science, SUNY-Albany,
EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL
POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.23.
Third, there has been long-standing support for nationwide popular election among the public and from members
of Congress in both political parties from small, medium, and large states in all parts of the country. As shown in
appendix S of this book, there has been at least one Senator or Representative in each of the 50 states who has
either sponsored a bill for nationwide popular election or voted for nationwide popular election of the President
in a roll call vote in Congress.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
35
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
NOVEMBER 2011
DIRECT ELECTION SUPERIOR: TURNOUT
1.
DIRECT ELECTION WOULD INCREASE TURNOUT -- EVERY VOTE COUNTS
Sanford Levinson, Professor, Law, University of Texas, OUR UNDEMOCRATIC CONSTITUTION, 2006,
p.88-89.
Given the reality of electoral votes, instead of what might be termed the "real votes" of individual citizens, it is a
matter of complete indifference to candidates and their campaign organizations whether the turnout in a given
state is 40 percent or 60 percent, so long as they can confidently predict that, whatever the turnout is, a given
candidate will still win. The Bush campaign, therefore, had no interest in putting scarce funds into a
get-voters-to-the-polls program in Texas or Wyoming, nor did Senator John Kerry have any interest in a similar
program in Massachusetts. Both campaigns were, instead, vitally, almost pathologically, interested in Florida
and Ohio. It is almost certainly the case that a truly national election, instead of the congeries of state-by-state
elections that we now have, courtesy of the Electoral College, would increase turnout inasmuch as there would
be more incentive for everyone to vote, in both (and other) parties. And, with increased turnout, we might get
different winners than those now holding the gold medal at the end of the election race.
2.
DIRECT ELECTION INCREASES TURNOUT
John R. Koza, PhD, Barry Fadem, attorney, Mark Grueskin, attorney, Michael S. Mandell, attorney, Robert
Richie, Executive Director, FairVote, and Joseph F. Zimmerman, Professor, Political Science, SUNY-Albany,
EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL
POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.609-610.
In America Goes to the Polls: A Report on Voter Turnout in the 2008 Election, the Nonprofit Voter Engagement
Network found that "Voter turnout in the 15 battleground states averaged seven points higher than in the 35
non-battleground states." If presidential campaigns did not ignore 200,000,000 of 300,000,000 Americans, one
would reasonably expect that voter turnout would rise in the two-thirds of the country that is currently ignored
by presidential campaigns.
3.
DIRECT ELECTION WOULD NOT SUPPRESS TURNOUT
John R. Koza, PhD, Barry Fadem, attorney, Mark Grueskin, attorney, Michael S. Mandell, attorney, Robert
Richie, Executive Director, FairVote, and Joseph F. Zimmerman, Professor, Political Science, SUNY-Albany,
EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL
POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.609.
MYTH: A national popular vote will decrease turnout.
QUICK ANSWER: * Voter turnout averages about 7% higher in battleground states than spectator states.
Therefore, one would reasonably expect that voter turnout would rise in the two-thirds of the country that is
currently ignored by presidential campaigns.
4.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE WEAKENS INCENTIVES FOR VOTER PARTICIPATION
George C. Edwards, Professor, Political Science, Texas A&M University, WHY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE
IS BAD FOR AMERICA, 2005, p.119-120.
It is difficult to sec whose interests the electoral college protects. Rather than protecting the interests of states
and minorities, the electoral college weakens incentives for voter participation in states that arc safe for a
candidate and similarly weakens the incentive for either the majority or the minority party to attempt to persuade
citizens to support them and to go to the polls. It docs not make sense, under the electoral college, for candidates
to allocate scarce resources to states they cannot win or, if they will win them, in which the size of their victory
is irrelevant.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
36
NOVEMBER 2011
DIRECT ELECTION SUPERIOR: VOTE EQUALITY
1.
POLITICAL EQUALITY IS THE MOST IMPORTANT VALUE IN OUR DEMOCRACY
George C. Edwards, Professor, Political Science, Texas A&M University, WHY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE
IS BAD FOR AMERICA, 2005, p.31-32.
Political equality lies at the core of democratic theory. Robert Dahl, the leading democratic theorist, includes
equality in voting as a central standard for a democratic process: "every member must have an equal and
effective opportunity to vote, and all votes must be counted as equal." A constitution for democratic government,
he adds, "must be in conformity with one elementary principle: that all members are to be treated (under the
constitution) as if they were equally qualified to participate in the process of making decisions about the policies
the association will pursue. Whatever may be the case on other matters, then, in governing this association all
members are to be considered as politically equal"
2.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE IS THE BIGGEST SOURCE OF VOTING INEQUALITY IN AMERICA TODAY
Dr. Robert A. Holmes, Emeritus Distinguished Professor of Political Science, Atlanta University, EVERY
VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL POPULAR
VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.xlvii.
Perhaps the most important issue of voting inequality in the nation today is the method used to choose the
President, particularly the awarding of states' Electoral-College votes using the winner-take-all method. Article I,
Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution gives the 50 states the exclusive authority to decide how to allocate their
electoral votes in presidential elections. Originally, the Electoral College was created to allow a group of
"chosen wise men" whose numbers were determined by the size of the congressional delegation from the various
states to meet after the general election at their state capitols to vote for the candidate whom they believed
should be President. While competing political parties have come and gone, and there have been changes in the
methods for choosing members of the Electoral College, the allocation of these electoral college votes among the
candidates has remained a plenary power of the 50 individual state legislatures. Forty-eight states and the
District of Columbia use the winner-take-all method while two states, Maine and Nebraska, assign their votes
based on congressional districts. Under the current system, four of the 56 presidential elections (1 of each 14)
have been "won" by the candidate who finished second in terms of the total national popular vote of the
electorate. Further, a change of less than 1 percent in one or two states would have led to the same results in five
of the last 12 presidential election
3.
DIRECT ELECTION WOULD ALLOW EVERYONE TO PARTICIPATE ON AN EQUAL BASIS
Sanford Levinson, Professor, Law, University of Texas, OUR UNDEMOCRATIC CONSTITUTION, 2006,
p.89.
The battleground phenomenon explains not only variations in visitations by candidates. Anyone living in the
United States in late October 2000 would have believed that the most crucial issue facing the entire country was
prescription drugs for the elderly. Almost no other issue, including foreign policy (save for unending professions
of support for Israel and militant opposition to Fidel Castro), was visible as both Bush and Gore sought votes
from -- or "pandered to" -- Florida's citizens. Because of the misfortune that most of America's largest cities are
in nonbattleground states, almost no presidential candidate in years has made a truly serious speech about the
plight of these cities. Democrats can take the states containing New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston, and
Los Angeles for granted, while Republicans in turn have almost no incentive to devote themselves to
consideration of their plight. So one should concede that Al Gore's apparent popular vote victory -- as with
Nixon's far more narrow victory in 1960-may have been a simple artifact of the fact that there is no incentive for
a candidate to try to maximize the national popular vote. Far better to spend scarce campaign resources attacking
the battleground states than to elicit additional votes where, because of the Electoral College, they would simply
be "wasted." A different system would produce a different turnout and a different distribution of votes. Perhaps
Gore would have won, perhaps not, but at least we would have the satisfaction of knowing that all Americans
participated in the election on an equal basis instead of the travesty created by the Electoral College.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
37
NOVEMBER 2011
DIRECT ELECTION SUPERIOR: VOTE EQUALITY cont'd
4.
EACH VOTE SHOULD COUNT EQUALLY
John Anderson, former member of Congress and Professor, Law, Nova Southeastern University, EVERY VOTE
EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE,
Third Edition, 2011, p.xxii.
Majority rule and political equality are fundamental tenets of democracy. The power of one's vote should be
equal, no matter where one lives. Candidates for our most important national office should have incentives to
speak to everyone. In the past century, we have amended the Constitution to elect Senators directly, to guarantee
women's right to vote, and to lower the voting age to 18. We have passed the Voting Rights Act to provide
access to the ballot regardless of race or ethnicity. The Electoral College has escaped the move to greater
democracy only because of institutional inertia and misguided, parochial considerations. A large majority of
Americans have consistently supported direct election of the President for many years, and it is time to listen to
them. This book describes the "Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote,"
an innovative approach that is a politically practical way to achieve the goal of nationwide popular election of
the President. It has my enthusiastic support.
5.
POLITICAL EQUALITY IS THE FOUNDATION OF A STRONG AND JUST DEMOCRACY
George C. Edwards, Professor, Political Science, Texas A&M University, WHY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE
IS BAD FOR AMERICA, 2005, p.32-33.
Yet there are reasons why a nation should adopt political equality as the basic principle of a state.s First, there
are ethical and religious grounds -- we are all equally Gods children. Joseph Schumpeter argued that political
equality has traditionally been defended on the basis of Christian belief. He writes that the "intrinsic value of the
individual soul" is "a sanction of 'everyone to count for one, no one to count for more than one' -- a sanction that
pours supermundane meaning into articles of the democratic creed." Political equality is also a prudent approach
to the distribution of power. Even if you were privileged, your status could change, and you might be hurt if
voting power were inequitable. In John Rawls's famous thought experiment, he imagines what principles of
governing a group of reasoners might choose if they were shrouded in the famous "veil of ignorance" and thus
unaware of their political or social identities. He asserts that they would choose political equality, and few have
challenged this part of his argument. Political equality is also the alternative for distributing voting power that is
most likely to receive public support. Because no one ever proposes to count some votes more than others,
public opinion polls rarely pose a question dealing with political equality in voting. An exception is the electoral
college itself. As the Gallup Poll reported in 2001, "There is little question that the American public would
prefer to dismantle the Electoral College system, and go to a direct popular vote for the presidency. In Gallup
polls that stretch back over 50 years, a majority of Americans have continually expressed support for the notion
of an official amendment of the U.S. Constitution that would allow for direct election of the president."a If
members of Congress were to pass a law that established a system that counted the votes of citizens in certain
states more than the votes of citizens of other states, there can be little doubt that those members supporting such
a law would have brief legislative careers. Finally, as Dahl, points out, there is no plausible and convincing
alternative to political equality. Who would argue that some persons are more worthy than others or that some
people's good is more worthy than that of others? Such an argument would, as Justice Hugo Black declared in
Wesberry v. Sanders {1964), "run counter to our fundamental ideas of democratic government."
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
38
NOVEMBER 2011
DIRECT ELECTION SUPERIOR: VOTE EQUALITY cont'd
6.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE DISTORTS CAMPAIGNS, UNDERMINES EQUALITY OF VOTES
NEW YORK TIMES, "Abolish the Electoral College," editorial, 8-29-04,
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/29/opinion/29sun1.html, accessed 10-4-11.
The main problem with the Electoral College is that it builds into every election the possibility, which has been a
reality three times since the Civil War, that the president will be a candidate who lost the popular vote. This
shocks people in other nations who have been taught to look upon the United States as the world's oldest
democracy. The Electoral College also heavily favors small states. The fact that every one gets three automatic
electors -- one for each senator and a House member -- means states that by population might be entitled to only
one or two electoral votes wind up with three, four or five. The majority does not rule and every vote is not equal
-- those are reasons enough for scrapping the system. But there are other consequences as well. This election has
been making clear how the Electoral College distorts presidential campaigns. A few swing states take on
oversized importance, leading the candidates to focus their attention, money and promises on a small slice of the
electorate. We are hearing far more this year about the issue of storing hazardous waste at Yucca Mountain, an
important one for Nevada's 2.2 million residents, than about securing ports against terrorism, a vital concern for
19.2 million New Yorkers. The political concerns of Cuban-Americans, who are concentrated in the swing state
of Florida, are of enormous interest to the candidates. The interests of people from Puerto Rico scarcely come up
at all, since they are mainly settled in areas already conceded as Kerry territory. The emphasis on swing states
removes the incentive for a large part of the population to follow the campaign, or even to vote.
7.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE IS ANTI-DEMOCRATIC -- BASES OUTCOME ON POPULATION, NOT
NUMBER OF VOTERS
John Anderson, former member of Congress and Professor, Law, Nova Southeastern University, EVERY VOTE
EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE,
Third Edition, 2011, p.xxi-xxii.
The rule for apportioning electoral votes according to the number of each state's members of Congress is
anti-democratic because it makes electoral power in the presidential race dependent on the population of a state,
rather than on its number of voters. For this reason, there is no national incentive to spur turnout in a state and
expand the franchise.
8.
EVERY VOTE SHOULD BE COUNTED EQUALLY
John R. Koza, PhD, Barry Fadem, attorney, Mark Grueskin, attorney, Michael S. Mandell, attorney, Robert
Richie, Executive Director, FairVote, and Joseph F. Zimmerman, Professor, Political Science, SUNY-Albany,
EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL
POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.1.
In elections for President and Vice President of the United States, every vote should be equal. Every person's
vote should be equally important, regardless of the state in which the vote is cast. The presidential and
vice-presidential candidate who receive the most popular votes throughout the United States should win those
offices. The current system for electing the President and Vice President does not satisfy these principles.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
39
NOVEMBER 2011
DIRECT ELECTION SUPERIOR: ANSWERS TO:
"BIG STATE/BIG CITY FOCUS"
1.
DIRECT ELECTION IS THE ONLY WAY TO EMPOWER VOTERS IN LOW POPULATION STATES
John R. Koza, PhD, Barry Fadem, attorney, Mark Grueskin, attorney, Michael S. Mandell, attorney, Robert
Richie, Executive Director, FairVote, and Joseph F. Zimmerman, Professor, Political Science, SUNY-Albany,
EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL
POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.441-442.
The political reality is that the National Popular Vote plan cannot possibly "lessen the need" of candidates to win
the support of low-population states because candidates have no need whatsoever to solicit the support of the
low-population states under the current system. In fact, it is the current state-by-state winner-take-all system that
renders these states "almost permanently irrelevant in presidential political strategy." A national popular vote is
the only way to give voters in the nation's less-populous states a voice in presidential elections. Under a national
popular vote, a voter in a reliably one-party low-population state would be as important as a voter anywhere else
in the country.
2.
"BIG STATE FOCUS" IS JUST AS BIG A PROBLEM UNDER THE CURRENT SYSTEM
John R. Koza, PhD, Barry Fadem, attorney, Mark Grueskin, attorney, Michael S. Mandell, attorney, Robert
Richie, Executive Director, FairVote, and Joseph F. Zimmerman, Professor, Political Science, SUNY-Albany,
EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL
POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.459.
Third, if anyone were genuinely concerned about the hypothetical scenario that a candidate could win the
Presidency under a national popular vote by winning 100% of the popular vote in the 11 largest states, they
should be even more concerned about this same scenario under the current system. Under the current
state-by-state winner-take-all system, a candidate could theoretically win the Presidency by winning a mere
50.01% of the popular vote in the 11 largest states. That is, under the current system, it is possible for a
candidate to win the Presidency with less than 25% of the nation's popular votes.
3.
DIRECT ELECTION WOULD INCREASE CAMPAIGN ATTENTION GIVEN TO LOW POPULATION
STATES
John R. Koza, PhD, Barry Fadem, attorney, Mark Grueskin, attorney, Michael S. Mandell, attorney, Robert
Richie, Executive Director, FairVote, and Joseph F. Zimmerman, Professor, Political Science, SUNY-Albany,
EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL
POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.442.
MYTH: The low-population states are so small that they will not attract any attention under any system.
QUICK ANSWER: * Under a national popular vote, a voter in a low-population state would become as
important as any other voter in the United States. * The 13 least-populous states together have approximately the
same population as Pennsylvania, and no one would suggest that Pennsylvania's 12 million people would be
ignored in a national popular vote for President. * The low-population states are not currently ignored because of
their low population, but because they are not closely divided battleground states. The battleground state of New
Hampshire received 12 campaign events in the post-convention general election campaign in 2008, while 10
other low-population non-battleground states received none. * Serious candidates for office solicit every vote
that matters. Every vote in every state will matter in every presidential election under the National Popular Vote
plan. * In most cases, low-population states offer presidential candidates the attraction of considerably lower
per-impression media costs.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
40
NOVEMBER 2011
DIRECT ELECTION SUPERIOR: ANSWERS TO:
"BIG STATE/BIG CITY FOCUS" cont'd
4.
GAMING BIG STATES IS POTENTIALLY A BIGGER PROBLEM UNDER THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE
SYSTEM
John R. Koza, PhD, Barry Fadem, attorney, Mark Grueskin, attorney, Michael S. Mandell, attorney, Robert
Richie, Executive Director, FairVote, and Joseph F. Zimmerman, Professor, Political Science, SUNY-Albany,
EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL
POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.460.
Fifth, under the current state-by-state winner-take-all system, it would have been theoretically possible to win
the Presidency with between 16% and 22% of the popular vote in the 15 elections between 1948 and 2004.
Professor Alexander S. Belenky has computed (table 10.8) the percentage of voters who could have elected a
President in the Electoral College based on the numbers of votes cast in the election in each state (including the
District of Columbia starting in 1964).
5.
CANDIDATES WOULD NOT RESTRICT THEIR CAMPAIGNING TO BIG MEDIA MARKETS
John R. Koza, PhD, Barry Fadem, attorney, Mark Grueskin, attorney, Michael S. Mandell, attorney, Robert
Richie, Executive Director, FairVote, and Joseph F. Zimmerman, Professor, Political Science, SUNY-Albany,
EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL
POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.466.
MYTH: Candidates would only campaign in media markets, while ignoring the rest of the country.
QUICK ANSWER: * Every person in the United States lives in a media market, including the media markets for
television, radio, newspapers, magazines, direct mail, billboards, and the Internet. MORE DETAILED
ANSWER: This myth appears to be a carry-over from the long-past early days of over-the-air television when
significant parts of the country were not reachable by television. Today, every person in the United States lives
in a media market, including the media markets for television, radio, newspapers, direct mail, billboards,
magazines, and the Internet. Focusing specifically on television (the largest single component of spending in
presidential campaigns), virtually everyone in the United States has access to television. This has been true for
decades. No one in the United States will be left out of a presidential campaign because they do not live in a
media market. People are, however, left out of presidential campaigns, under the current system, because of the
state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes. Candidates have no reason to pay any
attention to voters who do not live in closely divided battleground states. Under a national popular vote, every
vote would be equal. Under the National Popular Vote plan, every person's vote in every state would matter in
every presidential election.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
41
NOVEMBER 2011
DIRECT ELECTION SUPERIOR: ANSWERS TO:
"DIRECT/DISTRICT ALLOCATION"
1.
DISTRICT BY DISTRICT VOTING EVEN WORSE
Michael Waldman, Brennan Center for Justice, A RETURN TO COMMON SENSE: 7 BOLD REFORMS YOU
CAN MAKE TO SAVE OUR FAILED GOVERNMENT, 2008, p.106-107.
Nearly everywhere, the winner takes all the state's electoral votes.Democrats are especially strong in California,
and thus its fifty-five electoral votes are key to their election bloc. In 2007, a petition drive sought to put the
"Presidential Election Reform Act" on the California ballot as an initiative.Under its terms, the winner in each
congressional district gets that district's electoral vote. It sounds reasonable at first, but on closer look, the
arguments for it crumble like a mummy hitting air. Most simply, to take this step in only one big state would
simply siphon off votes from one party, in this case the Democrats. (Hence the GOP lawyers behind the effort.)
Columnist Bob Herbert estimates that twenty electoral votes would have gone to Bush that went to Kerry in
2004.To make this change in only one state guarantees a partisan tilt. (North Carolina Democrats were poised to
try something similar, but national leaders yanked them back.) A district-by-district vote would put the entire
presidential poll at the mercy of creative gerrymandering. Only three of California's congressional districts are
remotely competitive. Newsweek's Jonathan Alter notes, "And if the idea was somehow adopted nationally, it
would mean competing for votes in only about 60 far-flung congressional districts -- roughly seven percent of
the country. Everyone else's vote would not 'count,' if you want to look at it that way." The Federal Voting
Rights Act also makes sure that district lines are drawn to give African Americans and other minorities a chance
to be represented in Congress. But in a presidential race, the effect would be to dilute their vote by squeezing
them into a handful of districts.
2.
CONGRESSIONAL-DISTRICT ALLOCATION WOULD NOT MAKE ELECTIONS MORE COMPETITIVE
John R. Koza, PhD, Barry Fadem, attorney, Mark Grueskin, attorney, Michael S. Mandell, attorney, Robert
Richie, Executive Director, FairVote, and Joseph F. Zimmerman, Professor, Political Science, SUNY-Albany,
EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL
POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.598.
The congressional-district approach fails when evaluated against the criteria of whether it would make
presidential elections more competitive, whether it would accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote, and
whether it would make every vote equal. In short, allocating electoral votes by congressional district would
make a bad system even worse. As to competitiveness, even fewer Americans live in presidentially competitive
congressional districts than live in battleground states. In the 2000 presidential election, there were only 55
congressional districts (out of 435 districts) in which the difference between George W. Bush and Al Gore was
4% or less in the district. Similarly, in 2004, there were only 42 congressional districts nationwide in which the
difference between George W. Bush and John Kerry was 4% or less in the district. That is, only about a tenth of
the population of the country lives in a congressional district that is closely divided in presidential elections. In
contrast, about a third of the country's population currently lives in a battleground state. One reason why the
congressional-district approach is so much less competitive than the existing statewide winner-take-all approach
is that congressional districts are often gerrymandered in favor of one party or the other in many states. This
gerrymandering is sometimes done to give one party an unfair political advantage, and it is sometimes done as
part of a bipartisan agreement to ensure safe seats to incumbents of both parties. If electoral votes were allocated
by congressional district, state legislatures would have even greater incentives to gerrymander districts than they
now do.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
42
NOVEMBER 2011
DIRECT ELECTION SUPERIOR: ANSWERS TO:
"DIRECT/DISTRICT ALLOCATION" cont'd
3.
DIRECT ALLOCATION WOULD ONLY WORSEN GERRYMANDERING
Joshua Spivak, Senior Fellow, Hugh L. Carey Institute for Government Reform, Wagner College, "The Old
Electoral College Switcheroo," HUFFINGTON POST, 9-18-11,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joshua-spivak/pennsylvania-electoral-college_b_968790.html, accessed 10-5-11.
The negatives of an Electoral College switch quickly outweigh the proponent's arguments. It would make
gerrymandering, already a great headache, even more important. It would make state legislative elections even
more of a national battleground, and further push local issues into political oblivion. At best, it would have no
impact on the biggest flaw in the Electoral College -- its propensity to elect a popular vote loser. In fact, the
district-based system may be more likely to award the election to the "wrong winner," someone who loses the
popular vote. If the district-based system were in place in 1976, the wrong winner might have taken that race. It
would also have increased Bush's Electoral College totals in 2000.
4.
DIRECT ALLOCATION ENCOURAGES CHERRYPICKING AND GERRYMANDERING
George F. Will, "Don't Mess with the Electoral College," NATIONAL POST, 10-7-11,
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/10/07/george-f-will-dont-mess-with-the-electoral-college/, accessed
10-13-11.
In 1960, when Richard Nixon lost the popular vote to John Kennedy by 0.2% and the electoral vote 303-219, he
won 227 districts and 26 states, so under Pennsylvania's plan he would have won the presidency with 279
electoral votes. In 1976, Gerald Ford carried 215 districts and 27 states, Jimmy Carter carried 221 districts and
23 states and Washington, D.C. Under Pennsylvania's plan (and assuming no "faithless" electors), there would
have been a 269-269 electoral vote tie and the House of Representatives would have picked the winner.
Pennsylvania's plan would encourage third parties to cherry-pick particular districts, periodically producing
"winners" with only national pluralities of electoral votes, leaving the House to pick presidents. The existing
system handicaps third parties: In 1992, Ross Perot won 18.9% of the popular vote but no electoral votes.
Pennsylvania's proposal would raise the stakes of gerrymandering. And a swing state such as Colorado would
often be neglected: Its nine electoral votes are a pot worth competing for, but under Pennsylvania's plan, the split
might usually be 5-4 or 6-3.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
43
NOVEMBER 2011
DIRECT ELECTION SUPERIOR: ANSWERS TO:
"DIRECT/DISTRICT ALLOCATION" cont'd
5.
ALLOCATING VOTES BY DISTRICT FAILS -- MULTIPLE REASONS
Tara Ross, attorney, "The Electoral College: Enlightened Democracy," LEGAL MEMORANDUM n. 15,
Heritage Foundation, 11-1-04,
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2004/11/The-Electoral-College-Enlightened-Democracy, accessed
10-13-11.
District Plan. The District Plan would award electoral votes based upon congressional district. The candidate
with the most votes in any congressional district would win that district's one electoral vote. The two Senate
"add-on" votes in each state would then be treated as "at-large" votes and awarded to the state's popular vote
winner. Maine and Nebraska already operate under this system. The proposal would require other states to join
them. Neither Maine nor Nebraska has divided its electoral votes since their systems were first implemented, but
with close presidential elections the odds increase that one or both states will do so. 51 Proponents of the District
Plan argue that the system preserves the small-state advantage, while allowing diversity within the states to be
reflected in the national election totals. Moreover, they add, candidates would be encouraged to campaign in
states previously considered "safe." Greater voter participation would result, they argue, because every voter
would feel that his vote counts. Other Electoral College critics dismiss the District Plan, arguing that the plan
fails to address the "problem" of a popular vote winner failing to win the presidency. Indeed, Bush's margin of
victory in the Electoral College would have been greater under the District Plan, despite his popular vote loss.
The District Plan retains some of the advantages of the current Electoral College arrangement. America's
presidential election system should encourage national coalition building, and campaigning by districts would
certainly work toward this goal. However, many of the other benefits envisioned by District Plan proponents are
unlikely to come to pass. Greater voter participation is improbable, particularly in lopsided or "safe"
congressional districts -- and most congressional districts are safe. This so-called reform may actually have the
opposite effect from what was intended in states that are close overall but have congressional districts that are
not. Even worse, the primary incentive created by the District Plan is an increased motivation for
gerrymandering. State boundaries have one significant advantage over congressional district boundaries: They
are reasonably permanent and cannot be changed by an incumbent class of officials. Another problem created by
the District Plan is that it diverts attention from statewide and national issues. It discourages candidates from
addressing issues that appeal to the state as a whole and might encourage candidates to visit district rich,
high-population centers to the exclusion of rural districts. Moreover, if a state votes in pieces, consequential
issues would fall out of the larger debate in favor of local grievances. Focusing on a few swing districts would
repeat on a fragmented scale the "swing state problem." Candidates might visit only a few close districts and
ignore areas considered safe. Despite these arguments against the District Plan, the current system allows a state
to switch to the District Plan if it decides that doing so would be beneficial within its borders -- and it may do so
without the necessity of passing a constitutional amendment. Moreover, the state can switch back to a
winner-take-all system if implementing the District Plan causes more problems than it solved (as it is likely to
do). Constitutional amendments are not completed -- or undone -- nearly as easily.
6.
CONGRESSIONAL-DISTRICT BASED ALLOCATION WOULD BE EVEN WORSE
John R. Koza, PhD, Barry Fadem, attorney, Mark Grueskin, attorney, Michael S. Mandell, attorney, Robert
Richie, Executive Director, FairVote, and Joseph F. Zimmerman, Professor, Political Science, SUNY-Albany,
EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL
POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.597.
MYTH: It would be better to allocate electoral votes by congressional district.
QUICK ANSWER: * Allocating electoral votes by congressional district would make a bad system even worse.
* District allocation would reduce the percentage of Americans living in closely divided battleground areas. *
District allocation would not guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes
nationwide. * District allocation would not make every vote equal.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
44
NOVEMBER 2011
DIRECT ELECTION SUPERIOR: ANSWERS TO:
"DIRECT/DISTRICT ALLOCATION" cont'd
7.
CONGRESSIONAL-DISTRICT APPROACH WOULD BE EVEN WORSE THAN THE CURRENT SYSTEM
John R. Koza, PhD, Barry Fadem, attorney, Mark Grueskin, attorney, Michael S. Mandell, attorney, Robert
Richie, Executive Director, FairVote, and Joseph F. Zimmerman, Professor, Political Science, SUNY-Albany,
EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL
POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.598-599.
As to accurately reflecting the nationwide popular vote, a second-place candidate could easily win the
Presidency under the congressional-district approach. If the congressional-district approach had been applied to
the results of the closest of the nation's most recent presidential elections (2000), then Bush would have received
288 electoral votes (53.3% of the total number of electoral votes), and Gore would have received 250 electoral
votes (46.5% of the total). That is, the congressional-district approach would have given Bush a 6.8% lead in
electoral votes over Gore in 2000. Under the existing system, Bush received 271 electoral votes in 2000 (50.4%
of the total number of electoral votes) -- a 0.8% lead in electoral votes over Gore. The congressional district
approach would have greatly magnified Bush's lead in electoral votes in an election in which Gore received
50,992,335 popular votes (50.2% of the two-party popular vote) nationwide compared to Bush's 50,455,156
votes. In summary, the congressional-district approach would have been even less accurate than the existing
statewide winner-take-all system in terms of reflecting the nationwide will of the voters.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
45
NOVEMBER 2011
DIRECT ELECTION SUPERIOR: ANSWERS TO: "ELECTORAL MANDATE"
1.
THERE IS NO 'MANDATE EFFECT' DERIVED FROM THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE
John R. Koza, PhD, Barry Fadem, attorney, Mark Grueskin, attorney, Michael S. Mandell, attorney, Robert
Richie, Executive Director, FairVote, and Joseph F. Zimmerman, Professor, Political Science, SUNY-Albany,
EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL
POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.572.
MYTH: The current winner-take-all system gives the incoming President a "mandate" in the form of an
exaggerated lead in the Electoral College.
QUICK ANSWER: * The current system of electing the President does not reliably generate a "mandate" in the
form of a larger percentage share of the electoral vote than the candidate's share of the national popular vote. * If
anyone believes that an exaggerated margin in the Electoral College is desirable in that it enhances a new
president's ability to lead, the National Popular Vote plan would do an even better job of creating this illusion
than the current system.
2.
CURRENT SYSTEM DOES NOT CREATE THE ILLUSION OF A 'MANDATE' FOR AN INCOMING
PRESIDENT
John R. Koza, PhD, Barry Fadem, attorney, Mark Grueskin, attorney, Michael S. Mandell, attorney, Robert
Richie, Executive Director, FairVote, and Joseph F. Zimmerman, Professor, Political Science, SUNY-Albany,
EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL
POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.573.
The historical record shows that the above statement is false about as often as it is true. It is, therefore, not an
accurate characterization of what actually happens in the real world. The current state-by-state winner-take-all
system does not reliably deliver an exaggerated margin to the incoming President. For example, despite winning
by almost two million votes nationwide, Jimmy Carter won the Electoral College in 1976 with only 297 electoral
votes (27 over the 270 needed for election). Despite winning by over three million votes in 2004, George W.
Bush won the Electoral College with only 286 electoral votes (16 over the 270 needed). Moreover, the current
state-by-state winner-take-all system does not reliably confer an illusory mandate on an incoming President.
There is certainly no historical evidence that the Congress, the public, the media, or anyone else has been more
deferential to an incoming President after an election in which he received a larger percentage of the electoral
vote than his percentage of the popular vote. As a recent example, Bill Clinton did not receive such deference
when he came into office with an eye-catching 370 electoral votes but only 43% of the popular vote in 1992.
3.
MANDATE UNDER THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE IS WEAK NOW
George C. Edwards, Professor, Political Science, Texas A&M University, WHY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE
IS BAD FOR AMERICA, 2005, p.128.
In the first place, presidents quite often do not receive a majority of the popular vote under lite electoral college
system. Since World War II, for example, no candidate received a majority of the vote in
1948,1960,1968,1992,1996, and 2000. And from 1824 until World War II, the winner did not receive a majority
of the vote in twelve presidential elections (table 6.1). In all, since 1824, the president has not received a
majority of the vote 40 percent of the time. Presidents who have won election without a majority of the vote
could not credibly claim a mandate, but plurality election has not hindered them. From Lincoln through Wilson,
from Truman to George W. Bush, such presidents have acted vigorously in pursuit of their policy goals, in both
domestic and foreign policy. In addition. Lincoln, Cleveland, Wilson, Nixon, and Clinton were reelected
(Cleveland, Wilson, and Clinton won with less than 50 percent of the vote twice). All recent presidents elected
without a majority of the popular vote have begun their terms with approval ratings of 57 percent or higher in the
Gallup Poll, hardly evidence of a crippled presidency.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
46
NOVEMBER 2011
DIRECT ELECTION SUPERIOR: ANSWERS TO: "ELECTORAL MANDATE" cont'd
4.
THERE IS LITTLE CONNECTION BETWEEN A MANDATE AND CONGRESSIONAL SUCCESS FOR A
PRESIDENT
George C. Edwards, Professor, Political Science, Texas A&M University, WHY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE
IS BAD FOR AMERICA, 2005, p.128.
It is one thing to be vigorous; it is something else to be successful. Did winning plurality elections hinder these
presidents? Would the)' have been more successful if they had won a majority of the vote and received a stronger
"mandate"? A striking feature of a listing of the presidents who won without a majority of the electorate's vote is
that it includes several presidents whom political scientists and historians view as the strongest and most
successful of their era, including James Polk, Abraham Lincoln, Grover Cleveland, and Wood row Wilson. The
only notably strong presidents during this period who received a majority of the vote are Andrew Jackson and
Theodore Roosevelt. In more recent decades, it would difficult to term Harry Truman, John Kennedy, Richard
Nixon, Bill Clinton, or George W. Bush "weak" presidents. When we control for the size of a president's party's
delegation in Congress, there is little relation between popular electoral majorities in presidential elections and
the presidents subsequent success in Congress. There is certainly nothing magical about a majority.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
47
NOVEMBER 2011
DIRECT ELECTION SUPERIOR: ANSWERS TO: "EXTREMIST CANDIDATES"
1.
CURRENT SYSTEM ACTUALLY ENCOURAGES REGIONAL THIRD PARTY CANDIDATES
John R. Koza, PhD, Barry Fadem, attorney, Mark Grueskin, attorney, Michael S. Mandell, attorney, Robert
Richie, Executive Director, FairVote, and Joseph F. Zimmerman, Professor, Political Science, SUNY-Albany,
EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL
POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.482-483.
What can be said about third-party candidacies in presidential elections is that the current system perversely
discriminates in favor of regional third-party candidates, while discriminating against third-party candidates who
have a broad national base of support. In 1948, Henry Wallace (a leftist candidate for President) and Strom
Thurmond (a pro-segregation candidate for President) each received 1.2 million popular votes. However, Strom
Thurmond (whose support was concentrated in the South) won 39 electoral votes in 1948, whereas Henry
Wallace (whose support was distributed throughout the county) received no electoral votes. Although Ross
Perot's percentage of the national popular vote in 1992 was twice the percentage received in 1968 by George
Wallace (a pro-segregation candidate), Perot won no electoral votes in 1992, whereas George Wallace won 46 in
1968. Although Perot received eight times Strom Thurmond's percentage of the popular vote in 1948, Perot won
no electoral votes in 1992, while Thurmond won 39. The current state-by-state winner-take-all system does not
prevent the proliferation of candidates; however, it does reward certain types of third-party candidacies while
punishing others. Some argue that third parties are inherently undesirable and that the election system should be
skewed so as to strengthen and favor the two-party system. Even if one subscribes to this viewpoint, it is difficult
to see what public purpose is served by the current system's perverse discrimination in favor of regionally
divisive third parties and against broad-based third parties.
2.
THERE IS LITTLE RISK OF A RISE IN EXTREMIST CANDIDATES
John R. Koza, PhD, Barry Fadem, attorney, Mark Grueskin, attorney, Michael S. Mandell, attorney, Robert
Richie, Executive Director, FairVote, and Joseph F. Zimmerman, Professor, Political Science, SUNY-Albany,
EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL
POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.483.
MYTH: Extremist candidates will proliferate under a nation al popular vote.
QUICK ANSWER: * If an Electoral College type of arrangement were essential for avoiding extremist
candidates, we should see evidence of the occurrence of this conjectured apocalyptic outcome in elections (such
as gubernatorial elections) that do not employ an Electoral College type of arrangement. * However, the fact is
that extremist candidates are rarely elected in elections in which the winner is the candidate who receives the
most votes.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
48
NOVEMBER 2011
DIRECT ELECTION SUPERIOR: ANSWERS TO: "EXTREMIST CANDIDATES" cont'd
3.
RISK OF EXTREMIST CANDIDATES IS LOW -- NON-PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS PROVE
John R. Koza, PhD, Barry Fadem, attorney, Mark Grueskin, attorney, Michael S. Mandell, attorney, Robert
Richie, Executive Director, FairVote, and Joseph F. Zimmerman, Professor, Political Science, SUNY-Albany,
EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL
POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.484.
If an Electoral College type of arrangement were essential for avoiding extremist candidates, we should see
evidence of the occurrence of this conjectured apocalyptic outcome in elections (such as gubernatorial elections)
that do not employ an Electoral College type of arrangement. Ross provides no evidence suggesting that
extremism results from elections in which the winner is the candidate who receives the most popular votes.
However, there is considerable evidence to the contrary. At the time the U.S. Constitution came into effect in
1789, governors were elected in only Rhode Island and Connecticut. The idea of popularly electing the governor
was adopted piecemeal, on a state-by-state basis. Today, all governors are elected. After 220 years of actual
experience in over 5,000 statewide elections for state chief executive, there has not been any widespread lack of
moderation in political discourse. Extremist candidates are rarely elected in elections in which the winner is the
candidate who receives the most popular votes. How many of the winners in over 5,000 gubernatorial elections
in the United States have been extremists? How many of the U.S. Senators elected in almost 100 years of actual
experience under the 17th Amendment have been extremists? Given this historical record, there is no reason to
expect the emergence of some new and currently unknown political dynamic if the President were elected in the
same manner as virtually every other public official in the United States. Candidates attempting to win any
election have a strong incentive to capture "the middle" of the electorate. Counting the votes on a nationwide
basis (instead of a statewide basis) would not make presidential candidates extreme.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
49
NOVEMBER 2011
DIRECT ELECTION SUPERIOR: ANSWERS TO: "FEDERALISM"
1.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE DOES NOTHING TO PROTECT THE FEDERAL SYSTEM
George C. Edwards, Professor, Political Science, Texas A&M University, WHY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE
IS BAD FOR AMERICA, 2005, p.151.
Neither is the electoral college a bastion of federalism. It is not based on federative principles and is not essential
for (he continuance of a healthy federal system. Direct election of the president would not diminish the role of
state and local parties and officials or the nominating conventions, and national standards for elections are
already in place and not to be feared.
2.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE EMPIRICALLY DOES NOTHING TO UPHOLD FEDERALIST INTERESTS
Bradford Plummer, "The Indefensible Electoral College," MOTHER JONES, 10-8-04,
http://motherjones.com/politics/2004/10/indefensible-electoral-college, accessed 10-3-11.
It's consistent with federalism! All history students recall that the Great Compromise of 1787 created the House,
which gives power to big populous states, and the Senate, which favors small states. The compromise was just
that, a compromise meant to keep delegates happy and the Constitution Convention in motion. Nevertheless, the
idea that small states need protection has somehow become legitimated over the years, and is used to support the
electoral college -- which gives small states disproportionate power in electing a president. But what, pray tell,
do small states need protection from? It's not as if big states are all ganging up on Wyoming. The fiercest
rivalries have always been between regions, like the South and North in the 1800s, or between big states, like
California and Texas today. Furthermore, most small states are ignored in presidential campaigns, so it's not
clear that the current system is protecting anything.
3.
DIRECT VOTE DOES NOT THREATEN FEDERALISM
John R. Koza, PhD, Barry Fadem, attorney, Mark Grueskin, attorney, Michael S. Mandell, attorney, Robert
Richie, Executive Director, FairVote, and Joseph F. Zimmerman, Professor, Political Science, SUNY-Albany,
EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL
POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.555-556.
MYTH: Federalism would be undermined by a national popular vote.
QUICK ANSWER: * Federalism concerns the distribution of power between state governments and the national
government. * The powers of state governments would not be increased or decreased relative to the federal
government based on whether presidential electors are elected along state boundary lines (as is the case under
the current state-by-state winner-take-all system) or national lines (as would be the case under the National
Popular Vote plan).
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
50
NOVEMBER 2011
DIRECT ELECTION SUPERIOR: ANSWERS TO: "FOUNDING FATHERS"
1.
THE FOUNDERS WERE NOT INFALLIBLE -- WE'VE KNOWN THAT THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE
WAS FLAWED FOR OVER 200 YEARS
Birch Bayh, former member of Congress, EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING
THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.xxiv-xxv.
Opponents of the direct election often point to the wisdom of the Founding Fathers in drafting the Constitution.
No question, the Founders had incredible wisdom and foresight, but they were dealing with a much different
society and the Electoral College was designed for the realities of the 18th century. The landmass of the country
was huge; travel and communication were arduous and primitive; and education was limited at best. Lack of
information about possible Presidential candidates among the general public was a very real consideration. Also,
there were issues involving slavery. At the time, 90% of the slave population lived in the South. Since the slaves
could not vote, without the weighted vote of the Electoral College, the South faced electoral domination from
Northern states. While not the first choice of any Founder, the Electoral College system solved these tricky
considerations with a compromise which allowed them to complete the monumental task of creating our
country's Constitution. However, it soon became apparent that the Electoral College process devised by the
Founders was flawed. In 1804, the initial Electoral College system was changed through the adoption of the 12th
Amendment. Additional weaknesses became apparent. In the 1800s, there were three instances when the popular
vote winner lost the Presidency. In 1824, John Quincy Adams was a minority vote winner over Andrew Jackson,
as were Rutherford B. Hayes over Samuel J. Tilden (1876), and Benjamin Harrison over Grover Cleveland
(1888). This anomaly is not that rare in the Electoral College system. In fact, a small shift of votes in one or two
states would have thrown the election to the second-place vote winner five additional times in the last 60 years
2.
"FOUNDING FATHERS" CLAIMS DON'T JUSTIFY THE COLLEGE -- WAS HASTILY DRAWN,
ORIGINAL JUSTIFICATIONS ARE NO LONGER VALID
Bradford Plummer, "The Indefensible Electoral College," MOTHER JONES, 10-8-04,
http://motherjones.com/politics/2004/10/indefensible-electoral-college, accessed 10-3-11.
The founding fathers wanted it that way! Advocates of the electoral college often appeal to the wisdom of the
Founding Fathers -- after all, they set up the system, presumably they had something just and wise in mind,
right? Wrong. History shows that the framers whipped up the electoral college system in a hurry, with little
discussion and less debate. Whatever wisdom the Founding Fathers had, they sure didn't use it to design
presidential elections. At the time, most of the framers were weary after a summer's worth of bickering, and
figured that George Washington would be president no matter what, so it wasn't a pressing issue. Most of the
original arguments in favor of an electoral college system are no longer valid. The electoral college was partially
a concession to slaveholders in the South, who wanted electoral clout without letting their slaves actually vote.
(Under the electoral college, slaves counted towards a state's electoral vote total.) The framers also thought that
ordinary people wouldn't have enough information to elect a president, which is not necessarily a concern today.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
51
NOVEMBER 2011
DIRECT ELECTION SUPERIOR: ANSWERS TO: "FOUNDING FATHERS" cont'd
3.
'FOUNDING FATHERS' ARGUMENT IS INACCURATE -- MULTIPLE REASONS
John R. Koza, PhD, Barry Fadem, attorney, Mark Grueskin, attorney, Michael S. Mandell, attorney, Robert
Richie, Executive Director, FairVote, and Joseph F. Zimmerman, Professor, Political Science, SUNY-Albany,
EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL
POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.391-392.
MYTH: The Founding Fathers designed and favored our nation's current system of electing the President.
QUICK ANSWER: * The Founding Fathers never agreed on how presidential electors should be chosen but,
instead, left the matter entirely to the states. * Despite the Founding Fathers' expectations that the Electoral
College would be a deliberative body, presidential electors became a rubberstamp for their political party's
nominees at the time of the nation's first competitive presidential election in 1796. * The Electoral College
further deviated from the Founders' vision when state winner-take-all statutes became prevalent (decades after
the 1787 Constitutional Convention). * The winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes was not debated
(much less voted upon or adopted) at the 1787 Constitutional Convention. * The winner-take-all method was not
the choice of the Founders and was, in fact, used by only three states in the nation's first presidential election in
1789. * The electoral system that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding
Fathers but, instead, is the product of decades of evolutionary change precipitated by the emergence of political
parties and the enactment by most states of winner-take-all statutes.
4.
FOUNDING FATHERS DID NOT FAVOR WINNER-TAKE-ALL APPROACH TO AWARDING
ELECTORAL VOTES
John R. Koza, PhD, Barry Fadem, attorney, Mark Grueskin, attorney, Michael S. Mandell, attorney, Robert
Richie, Executive Director, FairVote, and Joseph F. Zimmerman, Professor, Political Science, SUNY-Albany,
EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL
POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.392.
The Founding Fathers did not design nor anticipate -- much less favor -- the most salient feature of our nation's
present-day system of electing the President namely, state winner-take-all statutes (i.e., awarding all of a state's
electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes within each separate state). The
Founding Fathers never intended that all of a state's presidential electors would mindlessly vote, in lockstep, for
the candidate nominated at an extra-constitutional meeting (the party's nominating meeting). In the debates of
the Constitutional Convention and in the Federalist Papers, there is no mention of the winner-take-all method of
awarding electoral votes. When the Founding Fathers went back to their states in 1789 to organize the nation's
first presidential election, only three state legislatures chose to employ the winner-take-all method. Each of the
three states that used the winner-take-all method in 1789 repealed it by 1800. Instead, the Founding Fathers
envisioned an Electoral College composed of "wise men" who would act as a deliberative body and exercise
independent and detached judgment as to the best person to serve as President.
5.
CURRENT SYSTEM DOES NOT WORK IN THE WAY ANTICIPATED BY THE FOUNDING FATHERS
John R. Koza, PhD, Barry Fadem, attorney, Mark Grueskin, attorney, Michael S. Mandell, attorney, Robert
Richie, Executive Director, FairVote, and Joseph F. Zimmerman, Professor, Political Science, SUNY-Albany,
EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL
POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.394.
Of the 22,453 electoral votes cast for President in the nation's 56 presidential elections, only 11 votes were cast
in an unexpected way. Moreover, among these 11 cases, the vote of Samuel Miles for Thomas Jefferson in 1796
remains the only instance when the elector may have thought, at the time he cast his vote, that it might possibly
affect the national outcome. The expectation that presidential electors should faithfully support their party's
nominees has persisted to this day. In short, the Electoral College that we have today was not designed,
anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers but, instead, is the product of decades of evolutionary change
precipitated by the emergence of political parties and the enactment by most states of winner-take-all statutes.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
52
NOVEMBER 2011
DIRECT ELECTION SUPERIOR: ANSWERS TO: "FOUNDING FATHERS" cont'd
6.
THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE DOES NOT DELIBERATE -- IT FUNCTIONS AS A RUBBER-STAMP
John R. Koza, PhD, Barry Fadem, attorney, Mark Grueskin, attorney, Michael S. Mandell, attorney, Robert
Richie, Executive Director, FairVote, and Joseph F. Zimmerman, Professor, Political Science, SUNY-Albany,
EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL
POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.396.
As discussed in greater detail in section 10.1.4, the Electoral College never operated in this "deliberative"
fashion because the Founding Fathers did not anticipate the emergence of political parties (which occurred at the
time of the nation's first competitive presidential election in 1796). The political reality that presidential electors
act as rubberstamps became firmly established in the nation's first competitive election in 1796. All but one
presidential elector in 1796 cast his vote in support of his party's nominee. The one exception was Samuel Miles
(a Federalist elector from Pennsylvania), who unexpectedly cast his vote in the Electoral College for Thomas
Jefferson -- instead of John Adams (the nominee of the Federalist Party). Of the 22,453 electoral votes cast for
President in the nation's 56 presidential elections (between 1789 and 2008), only 11 were cast in an unexpected
way. Moreover, the unexpected vote of Samuel Miles in 1796 remains the only instance (among these 11 cases)
when the elector might have thought, at the time he cast his unexpected vote, that his vote might possibly affect
the national outcome.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
53
NOVEMBER 2011
DIRECT ELECTION SUPERIOR: ANSWERS TO: "LEGITIMACY"
-
ELECTORAL COLLEGE DOES NOTHING TO "VALIDATE" THE WINNER -- WILL ET AL. ARE
WRONG
Bradford Plummer, "The Indefensible Electoral College," MOTHER JONES, 10-8-04,
http://motherjones.com/politics/2004/10/indefensible-electoral-college, accessed 10-3-11.
Finally, Will argues that the electoral college strengthens or legitimizes the winner. For example, Woodrow
Wilson won only 41.8 percent of the popular vote, but his 81.9 percent electoral vote victory "produced a strong
presidency." This suggests that voters are fools and that the electoral vote total somehow obscures the popular
vote total. (If a candidate gets 45 percent of the popular vote, voters aren't going to think he got more than that
just because he got 81 percent of the electoral vote total. And even if they do, do we really want a system whose
aim is to mislead voters about election results?) Furthermore, there's no real correlation between a strong
electoral vote showing and a strong presidency. George H.W. Bush received 426 electoral votes, while Harry
Truman received only 303 in 1948 and George W. Bush a mere 271 in 2000. Yet the latter two were undeniably
"stronger" presidents in their dealings with Congress. There's also no evidence that an electoral landslide creates
a "mandate" for change. The landslides in 1984 and 1972 didn't give Reagan or Nixon a mandate for much of
anything -- indeed, those two presidents got relatively little done in their second terms.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
54
NOVEMBER 2011
DIRECT ELECTION SUPERIOR: ANSWERS TO: "MINORITY VOTERS"
1.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE DOES NOT PROTECT MINORITIES -- THEY ARE NOT CONCENTRATED IN
'SWING' AREAS
Bradford Plummer, "The Indefensible Electoral College," MOTHER JONES, 10-8-04,
http://motherjones.com/politics/2004/10/indefensible-electoral-college, accessed 10-3-11.
Some college buffs have argued that, since ethnic minorities are concentrated in politically competitive states,
the electoral college forces candidates to pay more attention to minorities. This sounds great, but it's wholly
untrue. Most African-Americans, for instance, are concentrated in the South, which has rarely been a "swing"
region. Hispanic voters, meanwhile, largely reside in California, Texas, and New York, all uncompetitive states.
It's true that Cubans in Florida have benefited wonderfully from the electoral college, but they represent an
extremely narrow interest group. All other minority voters have less incentive to vote. It's no surprise that the
electoral college has often enabled presidential candidates to ignore minorities in various states -- in the 19th
century, for instance, voting rights were poorly enforced in non-competitive states.
2.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE DOES NOT PROTECT MINORITY INTERESTS
George C. Edwards, Professor, Political Science, Texas A&M University, WHY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE
IS BAD FOR AMERICA, 2005, p.151.
Similarly, blacks and other minorities do not benefit from the electoral college because they are not well
positioned to determine the outcomes in states. As a result, the electoral college system actually discourages
attention to minority interests. Rather than protecting the interests of states and minorities, the electoral college
weakens incentives for voter participation in states that arc safe for a candidate and similarly weakens the
incentive for either the majority or minority party to attempt to persuade citizens to support them and to go to the
polls.
3.
DIRECT ELECTION WOULD NOT DISEMPOWER MINORITY VOTERS
John R. Koza, PhD, Barry Fadem, attorney, Mark Grueskin, attorney, Michael S. Mandell, attorney, Robert
Richie, Executive Director, FairVote, and Joseph F. Zimmerman, Professor, Political Science, SUNY-Albany,
EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL
POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.584.
MYTH: The political influence of racial and ethnic minorities would be diminished by a national popular vote.
QUICK ANSWER: * Given that every vote would be equal under the National Popular Vote compact, then the
assertion that the compact would diminish the influence of minorities must be based on the premise that current
state winner-take-all statutes give minorities more than their fair share of influence. There is no evidence that
this is the case.
4.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE PROVIDES NO ADVANTAGE FOR BLACKS WHO LIVE IN SOUTHERN
STATES
George C. Edwards, Professor, Political Science, Texas A&M University, WHY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE
IS BAD FOR AMERICA, 2005, p.98.
The electoral college provides no more advantage for blacks in the southern states, where they compose
substantial percentages of the population. Almost all African Americans in these states vote for Democratic
presidential candidates, but in a competitive election nationally, these states arc likely to go Republican. The
electoral college thus prevents the votes of blacks in these states from contributing to the national totals of the
Democratic candidate.
Third, African Americans are not "swing" voters. The)' are the most loyal component of the Democratic electoral
coalition. How would any leader persuade blacks (or any other group) to break radically from their traditional
political loyalties and shift their votes rapidly to another candidate? It is not a sensible proposition.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
55
NOVEMBER 2011
DIRECT ELECTION SUPERIOR: ANSWERS TO: "MINORITY VOTERS" cont'd
5.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE DISCOURAGES CANDIDATE APPEALS TO BLACK VOTERS
George C. Edwards, Professor, Political Science, Texas A&M University, WHY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE
IS BAD FOR AMERICA, 2005, p.99.
The electoral college thus discourages attention to the interests of African Americans because they are unlikely
to shift the outcome in a state as a whole. The winner-take-all system ensures that blacks have little or no voice
in presidential elections in the South."'2 This lack of attention to African American interests as a result of the
electoral college is nothing new. Research has found a positive and significant relationship between a state's
competitiveness and voting rights enforcement activity in the late nineteenth century.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
56
NOVEMBER 2011
DIRECT ELECTION SUPERIOR: ANSWERS TO:
"NATIONAL UNITY/CAMPAIGNS"
1.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE DOES NOT FORCE CANDIDATES TO APPEAL TO ALL PARTS OF SOCIETY
George C. Edwards, Professor, Political Science, Texas A&M University, WHY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE
IS BAD FOR AMERICA, 2005, p.148.
Presidents often win election under the electoral college without a majority, and winning a major it)' of the vote
in and of itself docs not make a president more effective in dealing with Congress. Although widespread
perceptions of a mandate arc an advantage for a president, election results seldom translate into them. The
electoral college is not essential for a two-parry system and actually encourages third parties to run presidential
candidates and discourages party competition in many states. There is no evidence that direct election of the
president would polarize political parties. The notion that the electoral college produces concurrent majorities
around the country and forces winning candidates to appeal successfully to all segments of society and all
geographic locations is pure fantasy. Nothing like that actually occurs. Equally problematic is the view that
victory in the electoral college ensures presidents effective coalitions for governing. Moreover, the electoral
college does not produce compromise within states, and it is fundamentally different from constitutional
provision that require supermajorities to take positive action.
2.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE DOES NOT INCREASE THE COHESIVENESS OF ELECTIONS
Bradford Plummer, "The Indefensible Electoral College," MOTHER JONES, 10-8-04,
http://motherjones.com/politics/2004/10/indefensible-electoral-college, accessed 10-3-11.
In an August column for Newsweek, George Will argued that the electoral college somehow makes presidential
elections more cohesive. Again, fine in principle, untrue in practice. Will first suggests that the system forces
candidates to win a broad swathe of states, rather than just focusing on the most populous regions. But even if
that happened, how is that worse than candidates focusing on a few random swing states? Or take Will's claim
that the electoral college system prevents "factions" from "uniting their votes across state lines." What? Factions
already exist -- white male voters vote Republican, African-Americans vote Democrat; evangelicals vote
Republican, atheists vote Democrat. If our polarized country is a concern, it has little to do with the electoral
college.
3.
CANDIDATES SIMPLY DO NOT REACH OUT TO ALL STATES UNDER THE CURRENT SYSTEM
John R. Koza, PhD, Barry Fadem, attorney, Mark Grueskin, attorney, Michael S. Mandell, attorney, Robert
Richie, Executive Director, FairVote, and Joseph F. Zimmerman, Professor, Political Science, SUNY-Albany,
EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL
POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.421.
MYTH: The current system ensures that presidential candidates reach out to all states.
QUICK ANSWER: * Far from ensuring that presidential candidates reach out to all states, winner-take-all
statutes regularly result in two-thirds of the states being ignored in the general election campaign for President. *
In the 2008 post-convention general election campaign, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their
campaign events and ad money in just six states, and 98% in just 15 states.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
57
NOVEMBER 2011
DIRECT ELECTION SUPERIOR: ANSWERS TO:
"NATIONAL UNITY/CAMPAIGNS" cont'd
4.
THERE IS ZERO INCENTIVE FOR A CANDIDATE TO CAMPAIGN IN MOST STATES UNDER THE
CURRENT SYSTEM
John R. Koza, PhD, Barry Fadem, attorney, Mark Grueskin, attorney, Michael S. Mandell, attorney, Robert
Richie, Executive Director, FairVote, and Joseph F. Zimmerman, Professor, Political Science, SUNY-Albany,
EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL
POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.421-422.
Tara Ross, an opponent of the National Popular Vote plan, has asserted in testimony at various state legislative
hearings: "[Under the current system] candidates can't win unless they build nationwide support." "Ultimately,
the Electoral College ensures that the political parties must reach out to all the states." Nothing could be further
from the truth. Current state winner-take-all statutes (i.e., awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate
who receives the most popular votes in each separate state) are the reason that two-thirds of the states and
two-thirds of the voters in the United States are systematically ignored in the general election campaign for
President. Because of the winner-take-all rule, presidential candidates have no reason to visit, advertise in,
organize in, poll in, or pay attention to the voters in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.
There is simply no benefit to a presidential candidate to ascertain and address the issues of concern to the voters
of a particular state and then spend time and money visiting, advertising in, and organizing in that state in order
to win that state by 60% (as compared to, say, 55%). Similarly, it does not help a presidential candidate to lose
the state with 45% of the vote (as compared to, say, 40%). As an approximate general rule, a state needs to be in
the 46% -- 54% range to be worth contesting in the general election campaign for President. Because of the
harsh political reality dictated by state winner-take-all statutes, candidates concentrate their attention on a small
handful of closely divided battleground states.
5.
CANDIDATES EVEN BASE THEIR POLICY PROPOSALS ON THE DESIRES OF VOTERS IN THE
SELECT FEW SWING STATE
John R. Koza, PhD, Barry Fadem, attorney, Mark Grueskin, attorney, Michael S. Mandell, attorney, Robert
Richie, Executive Director, FairVote, and Joseph F. Zimmerman, Professor, Political Science, SUNY-Albany,
EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL
POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.422-423.
Because of the winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes, candidates do not even bother to conduct
public opinion polls in spectator states because issues of concern to voters in these states are simply not relevant
to the goal of winning the White House. If candidates (and sitting Presidents contemplating reelection) are not
even aware of what issues are of concern to voters in two-thirds of the states, they are making policy based on
the desires of a few at the expense of the many. As Charlie Cook reported in 2004: "Senior Bush campaign
strategist Matthew Dowd pointed out yesterday that the Bush campaign hadn't taken a national poll in almost
two years; instead, it has been polling 18 battleground states." As Former White House Press Secretary Ari
Fleischer said in 2009: "If people don't like it, they can move from a safe state to a swing state and see their
president more." [Emphasis added] A mere four weeks after the November 2010 congressional elections, a
televised debate on C-SPAN among candidates for the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee
focused on the question of how the party would conduct the 2012 presidential campaign in the 14 states that
were expected to matter. Table 10.1 shows the states in which the presidential and vice-presidential candidates
held their 300 post-convention general election campaign events in 2008. The table is organized according to the
size of the jurisdiction, starting with the least populous state (Wyoming) at the top.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
58
NOVEMBER 2011
DIRECT ELECTION SUPERIOR: ANSWERS TO:
"NATIONAL UNITY/CAMPAIGNS" cont'd
6.
CURRENT SYSTEM FOCUSES CAMPAIGNS ON ISSUES THAT ONLY MATTER TO PEOPLE IN
BATTLEGROUND STATES
John R. Koza, PhD, Barry Fadem, attorney, Mark Grueskin, attorney, Michael S. Mandell, attorney, Robert
Richie, Executive Director, FairVote, and Joseph F. Zimmerman, Professor, Political Science, SUNY-Albany,
EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL
POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.426-427.
State winner-take-all statutes are the reason why two-thirds of the states and two-thirds of the voters are ignored
in presidential elections. Under the current winner-take-all system, a non-battleground state receives no attention
from either political party because neither party has anything to gain or lose in the state. The time that candidates
spend in various states, as well as the amount of money that they spend, indicates the value that candidates place
on the issues of concern to the voters of those states. Policy issues important to the battleground states are more
important to a presidential campaign than policy issues important to any of the 35-or-so spectator states. When a
sitting President is governing (and contemplating re-election or the election of his preferred successor), policy
issues important to the battleground states are more important than policy issues important to spectator states.
Consider the reliably Republican state of Idaho as an example of a spectator state. Given George W. Bush's 68%
margin of victory of 228,000 in 2004, no amount of campaigning will alter the fact that the Republican nominee
for President is virtually certain to win Idaho's four electoral votes in the politically foreseeable future under the
current system. Therefore, the Republican candidate for President has nothing to lose in Idaho by taking Idaho
for granted. Similarly, the Democratic candidate has nothing to gain in Idaho and can simply write it off. The
result of not being a closely divided battleground state is that issues of concern to Idaho voters are made
irrelevant to both parties. Under a national popular vote for President, every vote in Idaho would matter to both
the Democratic and Republican nominee in every election. A vote in Idaho would become as valuable as a vote
anywhere else in the country.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
59
NOVEMBER 2011
DIRECT ELECTION SUPERIOR: ANSWERS TO: "POPULAR PASSIONS"
1.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE DOES NOT PROTECT US AGAINST 'POPULAR PASSIONS'
John R. Koza, PhD, Barry Fadem, attorney, Mark Grueskin, attorney, Michael S. Mandell, attorney, Robert
Richie, Executive Director, FairVote, and Joseph F. Zimmerman, Professor, Political Science, SUNY-Albany,
EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL
POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.571.
MYTH: The Electoral College acts as a buffer and damper against popular passions.
QUICK ANSWER: * The Electoral College has never operated as a buffer and damper against popular passions.
* The Electoral College will not operate as a buffer and damper against popular passions -- with or without the
National Popular Vote approach to appointing presidential electors.
2.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE HAS NEVER PROTECTED AGAINST 'POPULAR PASSIONS'
John R. Koza, PhD, Barry Fadem, attorney, Mark Grueskin, attorney, Michael S. Mandell, attorney, Robert
Richie, Executive Director, FairVote, and Joseph F. Zimmerman, Professor, Political Science, SUNY-Albany,
EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL
POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.571.
This myth apparently originates from the failure (by some) to realize that the Electoral College currently does
not act as a buffer and damper against popular passions -- and indeed never did. It is true that the Founding
Fathers intended that the Electoral College would provide a buffer against the will of the people. They
anticipated that the Electoral College would consist of "wise men" who would deliberate on the choice of the
President and "judiciously" select the best candidate for the office. However, the vision of the Founding Fathers
was never realized in practice because the Founders did not anticipate the emergence of political parties. In the
nation's first two presidential elections (1789 and 1792), the Electoral College did not act as a buffer against
popular passions but, instead, acceded to the nationwide consensus that George Washington should be the
President. As soon as George Washington announced that he would not run for a third term in 1796, political
parties emerged. The competition for power was between two opposing groups holding two very different
visions about how the country should be governed. In 1796, both the Federalist and Anti-Federalist parties
nominated their presidential and vice-presidential candidates at national meetings composed of the party's
members of Congress. As soon as there were national nominees, both parties presented the public with
candidates for the position of presidential elector who made it known that they intended to act as willing
"rubberstamps" for the nominees of their respective political parties when the Electoral College met. In 1796, all
but one of the presidential electors then dutifully voted as expected when the Electoral College met. Moreover,
that election established the expectation that presidential electors should "act" and not "think.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
60
NOVEMBER 2011
DIRECT ELECTION SUPERIOR: ANSWERS TO:
"PROPORTIONAL ALLOCATION"
1.
PROPORTIONAL ALLOCATION WOULD NOT MAKE EVERY VOTE COUNT EQUALLY
John R. Koza, PhD, Barry Fadem, attorney, Mark Grueskin, attorney, Michael S. Mandell, attorney, Robert
Richie, Executive Director, FairVote, and Joseph F. Zimmerman, Professor, Political Science, SUNY-Albany,
EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL
POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.602.
Concerning the criterion of making every vote equal, every vote would not be equal under the proportional
approach. The proportional approach would disadvantage fast-growing states because electoral votes are only
redistributed among the states every 10 years (after each federal census). The proportional approach would
penalize states with a high degree of civic participation and high voter turnout (e.g., Oregon, Utah). The
proportional approach would disadvantage certain states in relation to other states. For example, Montana and
Wyoming each have one congressman and hence three electoral votes. However, Wyoming has a population of
495,304 in 2010, whereas Montana has a population of 905,316.
2.
PROPORTIONAL ALLOCATION WOULD STILL ALLOW CANDIDATES TO IGNORE MOST STATES
John R. Koza, PhD, Barry Fadem, attorney, Mark Grueskin, attorney, Michael S. Mandell, attorney, Robert
Richie, Executive Director, FairVote, and Joseph F. Zimmerman, Professor, Political Science, SUNY-Albany,
EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL
POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.604-605.
Campaigning is rarely capable of shifting more than 8% of the vote during a typical presidential campaign. Thus,
the only battleground states would be those where popular sentiment in the state fortuitously hovers right at the
critical boundary point where one electoral vote might be shifted. The vast majority of the states would not be
poised anywhere near that critical boundary point. Presidential campaigns would ignore every state where not
even one electoral vote would appear to be at stake. In the states hovering right at the boundary, the only "battle"
in these states would be for one electoral vote. That is, the proportional system would be, in effect, a
"winner-take-one" system (that is, the candidate receiving the most popular votes in the state would win an
advantage of one electoral vote). Among the 50 states and the District of Columbia, California is the only
jurisdiction where as many as two electoral votes might be in play under the proportional approach. Most states
would not hover right at the critical boundary point and hence would be ignored by presidential campaigns
3.
PROPORTIONAL ALLOCATION OF ELECTORAL VOTES WOULD NOT ADDRESS THE PROBLEM
John R. Koza, PhD, Barry Fadem, attorney, Mark Grueskin, attorney, Michael S. Mandell, attorney, Robert
Richie, Executive Director, FairVote, and Joseph F. Zimmerman, Professor, Political Science, SUNY-Albany,
EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL
POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.601.
MYTH: It would be better to allocate electoral votes proportionally.
QUICK ANSWER: * Allocating electoral votes proportionally would make a bad system even worse. *
Proportional allocation would not guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes
nationwide. * Proportional allocation would not make every vote equal. * The proportional system would result
in most states being ignored in presidential elections if it were implemented on a piecemeal state-by-state basis
(which inherently would permit candidates to receive only a whole number of electoral votes from each state).
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
61
NOVEMBER 2011
DIRECT ELECTION SUPERIOR: ANSWERS TO:
"PROPORTIONAL ALLOCATION" cont'd
4.
PROPORTIONAL ALLOCATION WOULD NOT WORK -- MULTIPLE REASONS
Tara Ross, attorney, "The Electoral College: Enlightened Democracy," LEGAL MEMORANDUM n. 15,
Heritage Foundation, 11-1-04,
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2004/11/The-Electoral-College-Enlightened-Democracy, accessed
10-13-11.
Proportional Plan. Under the Proportional Plan, the Electoral College would be retained, but the electoral votes in each state would be
allocated based upon the percentage of the popular vote won. Some versions of this plan call for whole electoral votes to be divided in the
interest of accuracy. Others also propose that the total number of electoral votes needed to win should be lowered to a 40 percent threshold.
Proponents argue that the plan would preserve the states' Electoral College strength, but that the results would be closer to the national
popular vote outcome. They further argue that the voices of minority voting groups would be reflected in the final election tally because even
ballots cast for third-party candidates could be reflected in the national results. Presidents could be elected without winning the popular vote,
but such an outcome would be less likely than under the current system. Other Electoral College opponents deem even the small remaining
possibility of a "popular vote loser" President to be unacceptable. The Proportional Plan is yet another option that sounds good on the surface,
but that creates problems in practice. First, constant fighting would erupt over election tallies. After all, a swing of one-tenth of a percent in
one or several states could change the outcome of the election. Potentially, at least one electoral vote in each of the 50 states would be open to
dispute every presidential election year. Worse, because this type of election is so similar to a direct popular election system, it contains many
of the same downfalls: multiple candidacies, close elections, runoffs, greater potential for fraud, and greater incentives for extremist
candidates to join the fray. Definitive election outcomes are discouraged. Close vote totals and challenges to election outcomes would
become the norm. Colorado, however, is currently considering adoption of this plan. A Colorado citizens' organization -- financed by a group
from San Francisco and funded by a Brazilian millionaire who resides part-time in California -- recently collected enough signatures to place
a referendum on its November 2004 ballot.If passed, this referendum would supposedly replace Colorado's winner-take-all system of casting
electoral votes with a system of proportional allocation, making Colorado the only state to enact such a method in presidential elections. The
referendum, however, has a glaring flaw. It purports to let Colorado voters decide the method of allocating the state's electoral votes, despite
the fact that the Constitution gives this power to state legislatures, not state citizens. For constitutional purposes, the difference is very real. If
the referendum passes, the most likely result is a series of court challenges in Colorado. Proponents of the referendum argue that state
statutory and constitutional provisions make the people equivalent to the legislature when they act through referendum or initiative.
Therefore, they conclude, passage of a referendum or other citizen initiative is a perfectly legal and valid manner of changing electoral vote
allocations in the state. These proponents, however, have forgotten the Supremacy Clause of the U. S. Constitution: State laws and
constitutions may not trump the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land and preempts all other laws. That
same Constitution explicitly designates each state's legislature as the entity with authority to decide the manner of appointing electors. States
(whether by referenda or other means) may certainly delegate legislative power to citizens for state purposes, but they may not delegate the
state legislature's constitutionally mandated duties in the national presidential election process. This principle has been upheld by the
Supreme Court in venerable old cases and some very recent decisions after the last presidential election. Speaking about an Ohio plan that
would allow the people to act in place of the legislature for certain purposes related to ratifying constitutional amendments, the Court
observed in 1920 that the Founders wrote the constitutional language based upon their wish to "secur[e] deliberation and consideration before
any change [to the Constitution] can be proposed." In short, the Court held, when the Constitution says "the Legislature," it means "the
Legislature." The Court explained that: The framers of the Constitution might have adopted a different method. Ratification might have been
left to a vote of the people, or to some authority of government other than that selected. The language of the article is plain, and admits of no
doubt in its interpretation. It is not the function of courts or legislative bodies, national or state, to alter the method which the Constitution has
fixed. In even simpler terms, however, the Court also pointed out what almost any middle-school child should know: A Legislature is a
representative body, not the people themselves. What did the framers of the Constitution mean in requiring [action] by `Legislatures'? That
was not a term of uncertain meaning when incorporated into the Constitution. What it meant when adopted it still means for the purpose of
interpretation. A Legislature was then the representative body which made the laws of the people. This principle applies to the constitutional
process for electing a President, just as it applies to the constitutional amendment process. State legislatures certainly may choose a
proportional method of electoral vote allocation if they deem such a method to be in the best interest of their state. However, if one state
acting on its own (particularly a small state) were to enact a proportional method of allocating electoral votes, the primary effect of its action
would be to significantly dilute its voting strength as compared to the other states because no presidential candidate will spend much time in a
state in which he is likely to influence only one swing electoral vote. No wonder so few states have enacted anything like this before. State
legislatures will better serve their citizens if they leave the winner-take-all system in place.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
62
NOVEMBER 2011
DIRECT ELECTION SUPERIOR: ANSWERS TO: "RECOUNTS"
1.
THE CURRENT SYSTEM IS FAR MORE LIKELY TO PRODUCE RECOUNT PROBLEMS
John R. Koza, PhD, Barry Fadem, attorney, Mark Grueskin, attorney, Michael S. Mandell, attorney, Robert
Richie, Executive Director, FairVote, and Joseph F. Zimmerman, Professor, Political Science, SUNY-Albany,
EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL
POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.532.
MYTH: The current system typically produces undisputed outcomes, and problems are rare.
QUICK ANSWER: * There have been five litigated state counts in the nation's 56 presidential elections under
the current state-by-state winner-take-all system. This rate is dramatically higher than the historical 1-in-160 rate
for elections in which there is a single statewide pool of votes and in which the winner is the candidate who
receives the most popular votes. * The current state-by-state winner-take-all system repeatedly creates artificial
crises because every presidential election generates 51 separate opportunities for a razor-thin margin. * Recounts
would be far less likely under the National Popular Vote bill than under the current system because there would
be a single pool of votes. Given that there is a recount only once in about 160 statewide elections, and given
there is a presidential election once every four years, one would expect a recount about once in 640 years under
the National Popular Vote approach. The actual probability of a close national election would be even less than
that because recounts are less likely with larger pools of votes. * The average change in the margin of victory as
a result of a statewide recount was a mere 296 votes in a 10-year study of 2,884 elections. * Three-quarters of all
recounts do not change the outcome. * No recount would have been warranted in any of the nation's 56 previous
presidential elections if the outcome had been based on the nationwide count.
2.
WINNER-TAKE-ALL SYSTEM REGULARLY ENCOURAGES RECOUNT/VOTE COUNT CRISES
John R. Koza, PhD, Barry Fadem, attorney, Mark Grueskin, attorney, Michael S. Mandell, attorney, Robert
Richie, Executive Director, FairVote, and Joseph F. Zimmerman, Professor, Political Science, SUNY-Albany,
EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL
POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.533.
There have been five litigated state counts in the nation's 56 presidential elections under the current
state-by-state winner-take-all system (i.e., awarding of all a state's electoral votes to the candidate who receives
the most popular votes in the state). This rate is dramatically higher than the historical 1-in-160 rate for elections
in which there is a single statewide pool of votes and in which the winner is the candidate who receives the most
popular votes. The current state-by-state winner-take-all system repeatedly creates artificial crises on a regular
basis because every presidential election generates 51 separate opportunities for a dispute. This fact is illustrated
by examining the five litigated state counts in the nation's 56 presidential elections. The 2000 presidential
election was an artificial crisis created because of George W. Bush's lead of 537 popular votes in the state of
Florida. Gore's nationwide lead was 537,179 popular votes (1,000 times larger than the disputed 537-vote
margin Florida). Given the miniscule number of votes that are changed by the typical recount (about 296 votes),
no one would have requested a recount or disputed the results in 2000 if the national popular vote had controlled
the outcome. In the absence of the state-by-state winner-take-all system, no one (except perhaps almanac writers
and trivia buffs) would have cared that one particular candidate happened to have a 537-vote margin in one
particular state.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
63
NOVEMBER 2011
DIRECT ELECTION SUPERIOR: ANSWERS TO: "RECOUNTS" cont'd
3.
DIRECT ELECTION WOULD LOWER THE RECOUNT RATE
John R. Koza, PhD, Barry Fadem, attorney, Mark Grueskin, attorney, Michael S. Mandell, attorney, Robert
Richie, Executive Director, FairVote, and Joseph F. Zimmerman, Professor, Political Science, SUNY-Albany,
EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL
POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.537.
In fact, the probability of a presidential recount under a national popular vote system would be even less than
1-in-160 because a close result is less likely to occur as the size of the jurisdiction increases. As previously
mentioned, the 1-in-160 statistic is based on data from 2,884 statewide elections. In any event, when there is a
single pool of votes, this 1-in-160 frequency of problematic elections is dramatically lower than the five litigated
state counts in 56 presidential elections that we have experienced under the current state-by-state winner-take-all
system. The reason there have been so many disputes in the mere 56 presidential elections is that there are 51
separate opportunities for recounts in every presidential election under the current state-by-state winner-take-all
system. Our nation's 56 presidential elections have really been 2,135 separate state-level elections. Thus, the
current system repeatedly creates artificial crises in which the vote is extremely close in particular states, while
not at all close on a nationwide basis. One good way to visualize the difference between the two systems is to
think of the chance of a recount as being represented by one bullet in a 160-chamber gun. Under a national
popular vote, the trigger is pulled once every four years. Based on history, we can reasonably expect the gun to
fire once every 640 years. In contrast, under the current state-by-state winner-take-all system, the trigger is
pulled 51 times every four years. Thus, we should not be surprised to have had so many disputed counts in a
mere 56 presidential elections.
4.
DIRECT ELECTION MAKES RECOUNTS LESS LIKELY
George C. Edwards, Professor, Political Science, Texas A&M University, WHY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE
IS BAD FOR AMERICA, 2005, p.125.
Nevertheless, under a system of direct popular election of the president, recounts would be less likely. In order to
undertake a recount, there has to be the reasonable possibility that enough incorrect or fraudulent votes can be
found to change the outcome of the election. The (ewer total votes in an electoral unit, the more likely it is that a
close contest may result in a small number of votes deciding the election. As we have seen, under the electoral
college a few votes in one state may be able to make the difference in swinging a large block or electoral votes
and possibly decide the election. This is what happened in Florida in 2000; the election was so close that adding
or subtracting a few hundred votes might realistically have changed the election outcome. A recount thus had a
plausible possibility of altering the outcome. If the election had been by popular vote, George W. Bush would
have had to find about a thousand times as many votes -- a daunting task. It is somewhat amusing that advocates
of the electoral college often argue that one of its advantages is that it produces a swift and sure decision. In the
wake of the election of 2000, such assertions seem naive. It is also noteworthy that throughout the protracted
battle over Florida's electoral votes, the public indicated that it would rather have a correct than a rapid decision.
5.
THERE IS NO REASON FOR US TO FEAR RECOUNTS
George C. Edwards, Professor, Political Science, Texas A&M University, WHY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE
IS BAD FOR AMERICA, 2005, p.125.
In sum, the argument that direct election of the president would encourage fraud is based on fault)'premises. In
addition, it is not clear why these advocates of the electoral college expect previously honest states to become
corrupt under direct election. Moreover, direct election would also promote party competition, which would
encourage better policing at the polls and more incentive to do so, since each vote would count toward a national
total. It is also unclear why advocates of the electoral college fear recounts. The laws in seventeen states require
them when the votes are close for elections, and they occur without incident or undue delay. It is better to obtain
an accurate count of Americans preferences than a rapid denouement that elects the candidate who is not the
publics choice. There would be little purpose to holding an election if our primary goal was to produce a winner
independent of how citizens cast their votes.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
64
NOVEMBER 2011
DIRECT ELECTION SUPERIOR: ANSWERS TO: "RECOUNTS" cont'd
6.
RECOUNT RISKS ARE JUSTIFIED
Bradford Plummer, "The Indefensible Electoral College," MOTHER JONES, 10-8-04,
http://motherjones.com/politics/2004/10/indefensible-electoral-college, accessed 10-3-11.
It's true, a nationwide recount would be more nightmarish than, say, tallying up all the hanging chads in Florida.
At the same time, we'd be less likely to see recounts in a direct election, since the odds that the popular election
would be within a slim enough margin of error is smaller than the odds that a "swing" state like Florida would
need a recount. Under a direct election, since it usually takes many more votes to sway a race (as opposed to a
mere 500 in Florida), there is less incentive for voter fraud, and less reason for candidates to think a recount will
change the election. But set aside these arguments for a second and ask: why do so many people fear the
recount? If it's such a bad idea to make sure that every vote is accurately tallied, then why do we even have
elections in the first place?
7.
RECOUNT OBJECTIONS APPLY JUST AS MUCH AS THE CURRENT SYSTEM
John R. Koza, PhD, Barry Fadem, attorney, Mark Grueskin, attorney, Michael S. Mandell, attorney, Robert
Richie, Executive Director, FairVote, and Joseph F. Zimmerman, Professor, Political Science, SUNY-Albany,
EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL
POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.537-538.
Moreover, it should also be noted that if the nationwide count were extremely close at some time in the future,
the current system would very likely also produce a disputed count in one or more states because roughly a third
of the 50 states would be closely divided battleground states. Criticism of the National Popular Vote plan in
connection with recounts is yet another example of a criticism that actually applies to the current state-by-state
winner-take-all system more than the National Popular Vote plan. Indeed, the question of recounts comes to
mind in connection with presidential elections only because the current system so frequently creates artificial
crises and unnecessary disputes. If we were debating whether to elect a governor by a popular vote, the issue of
recounts would never even come to mind, because everyone knows that recounts rarely occur in elections in
which there is a single pool of votes and in which the winner is the candidate who receives the most popular
votes.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
65
NOVEMBER 2011
DIRECT ELECTION SUPERIOR: ANSWERS TO: "RECOUNTS (FIREWALL)"
1.
CURRENT SYSTEM DOES NOT 'FIREWALL' RECOUNT PROBLEMS TO PARTICULAR STATES
John R. Koza, PhD, Barry Fadem, attorney, Mark Grueskin, attorney, Michael S. Mandell, attorney, Robert
Richie, Executive Director, FairVote, and Joseph F. Zimmerman, Professor, Political Science, SUNY-Albany,
EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL
POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.538.
MYTH: The current system acts as a firewall that helpfully isolates recounts to particular states.
QUICK ANSWER: * The current system does not act as a firewall that helpfully isolates recounts to particular
states but, instead, is the repeated cause of unnecessary fires. * The current system repeatedly creates artificial
crises because every presidential election generates 51 separate opportunities for a dispute. * There have been
five litigated state counts in the nation's 56 presidential elections under the current state-by-state winner-take-all
system. This rate is dramatically higher than the historical 1-in-160 rate for elections in which there is a single
pool of votes and in which the winner is the candidate who receives the most popular votes.
2.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE INCREASES THE RISK OF RE-COUNTS AND CONTESTED ELECTIONS
John R. Koza, PhD, Barry Fadem, attorney, Mark Grueskin, attorney, Michael S. Mandell, attorney, Robert
Richie, Executive Director, FairVote, and Joseph F. Zimmerman, Professor, Political Science, SUNY-Albany,
EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL
POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.18.
There are numerous examples of large disparities in the value of votes under the statewide winner-take-all
system. For example, Gore won five electoral votes by carrying New Mexico by 365 popular votes in the 2000
presidential election, whereas Bush won five electoral votes by carrying Utah by 312,043 popular votes -- an
855-to-1 disparity in the importance of a vote. In 2000, George W. Bush received 2,912,790 popular votes in
Florida, whereas Al Gore received 2,912,353-a difference of 537 popular votes. Meanwhile, Gore had a
nationwide lead of 537,179 popular votes. Gore's shortfall of 537 votes in Florida was less than 1/1000th of
Gore's nation-wide lead of 537,179 votes. However, under the winner-take-all rule in effect in Florida, Bush's
537-vote lead in Florida entitled him to all of Florida's 25 electoral votes, thereby giving him the Presidency.
The large differences in the value of a vote in various states in presidential elections has the additional negative
side effect of increasing the likelihood of contested presidential elections and recounts. Because the statewide
winner-take-all system divides the nation's 122,000,000 popular votes into 51 separate pools, it regularly
manufactures artificial crises even when the nationwide popular vote is not particularly close. There are fewer
opportunities for razor-thin outcomes when there is one single large pool of votes than when there are 51
separate smaller pools.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
66
NOVEMBER 2011
DIRECT ELECTION SUPERIOR: ANSWERS TO: "RECOUNTS (FIREWALL)" cont'd
3.
'FIREWALL' CLAIMS ARE FALSE -- THE WINNER-TAKE-ALL SYSTEM IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE
FIRES
John R. Koza, PhD, Barry Fadem, attorney, Mark Grueskin, attorney, Michael S. Mandell, attorney, Robert
Richie, Executive Director, FairVote, and Joseph F. Zimmerman, Professor, Political Science, SUNY-Albany,
EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL
POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.538-539.
In fact, the winner-take-all system is not a helpful firewall but, instead, the repeated cause of unnecessary fires.
Under the current winner-take-all system, there are 51 separate statewide vote pools in every presidential
election. Thus, our nation's 56 presidential elections have really been 2,135 separate state-level elections. These
51 separate pools regularly generate 51 separate opportunities for artificial crises in elections in which the vote is
not at all close on a nationwide basis (but close in particular states). This is the reason why there have been five
litigated state counts in the nation's 56 presidential elections. This rate is dramatically higher than the historical
1-in-160 rate for elections in which there is a single statewide pool of votes and in which the winner is the
candidate who receives the most popular votes. If anyone is genuinely concerned about minimizing the
possibility of recounts, then a single national pool of votes provides the way to drastically reduce the likelihood
of recounts and eliminate the artificial crises that are regularly produced by the current state-level
winner-take-all system.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
67
NOVEMBER 2011
DIRECT ELECTION SUPERIOR: ANSWERS TO: "RUNOFFS/DEALMAKING"
1.
POTENTIAL RUNOFFS WOULD NOT ENCOURAGE CORRUPT DEALMAKING AMONG CANDIDATES
George C. Edwards, Professor, Political Science, Texas A&M University, WHY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE
IS BAD FOR AMERICA, 2005, p.126.
Once again, faulty premises lie at the base of these conclusions. Advocates of the electoral college fail to realize
that the leaders of minor parties would have to make open bargains to serve as the basis of urging their followers
to vote for a particular candidate. What good would a "secret" bargain do anyone? Supporters would want to
know why the)' should support another candidate, what policy concessions a candidate has made to their views.
Such concessions would have to be public. The bargains that could be made would also be severely constrained.
How could the leaders of minor parties deliver votes to the candidates if they bargained away the issue stances
that attracted voters in the first place? If they made significant compromises, they could not deliver the votes. If
they did not make such compromises, why would anyone bargain with them? Similarly, candidates from
mainstream parties cannot compromise their issue stands with more extreme parties without alienating their own
supporters, which they would be loath to do.
2.
DEALS WOULD NOT REMAIN SECRET -- THIRD PARTY CANDIDATES WOULD HAVE NO
INCENTIVE
George C. Edwards, Professor, Political Science, Texas A&M University, WHY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE
IS BAD FOR AMERICA, 2005, p.126.
Because of their concern for issues, moreover, third part)' candidates would quite naturally endorse the part)'
closest to themselves. Their credibility would be lost if they endorsed the part)' farthest from their views. Could
George Wallace really deliver votes to Hubert Humphrey? Could Ralph Nader deliver votes to George W. Bush?
Or Patrick Buchanan to Al Gore? It is highly unlikely. Major party candidates would know this, or course,
limiting the ability of third party candidates to extract much in the way of concessions from them. Opponents of
direct election of the president argue that politicians currently bargain in an open process before the national
nominating conventions rather than in a closed process before the election or between the first ballot and a
runoff. There is very little evidence of such bargains, and advocates of the electoral college provide none.
Actually, there is little need to bargain, because one of the candidates secures the nomination long before the
convention. Did George W. Bush make public concessions to John McCain? Did Al Gore make similar bargains
with Bill Bradley? Not only is the premise of corrupt deals suspect, but the premise that "secret" deals would
remain secret is also dubious. In the age of 24/7 news coverage, just how long would any "secret" bargains
remain a secret?
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
68
NOVEMBER 2011
DIRECT ELECTION SUPERIOR: ANSWERS TO: "SMALL STATES"
1.
LOW POPULATION STATES WILL FARE BETTER UNDER A DIRECT ELECTION SYSTEM
John R. Koza, PhD, Barry Fadem, attorney, Mark Grueskin, attorney, Michael S. Mandell, attorney, Robert
Richie, Executive Director, FairVote, and Joseph F. Zimmerman, Professor, Political Science, SUNY-Albany,
EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL
POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.432-433.
MYTH: The low-population states would be disadvantaged by a national popular vote.
QUICK ANSWER: * The low-population states are the most disadvantaged group of states under the current
state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes. The reason is that political power in
presidential elections comes from Responses to Myths about the National Popular Vote Plan | 433 being a
closely divided battleground state, and almost all low-population states are one-party states in presidential
elections. * The 12 least-populous non-battleground states have about the same population (12 million) as the
closely divided battleground state of Pennsylvania. The 12 least-populous states have 40 electoral votes
compared to Pennsylvania's 20 electoral votes. However, Pennsylvania received 40 post-convention campaign
events in 2008, while the 12 least-populous non-battleground states received almost no attention. * The
least-populous states are not ignored because of their low population, but because they are not closely divided
battleground states. * Under the current winner-take-all method for awarding electoral votes, a vote for President
in Wyoming is equal to a vote in California -- both are politically worthless.
2.
EQUAL REPRESENTATION IN THE SENATE IS MORE THAN ADEQUATE TO PROTECT THE
INTERESTS OF SMALL STATES
John R. Koza, PhD, Barry Fadem, attorney, Mark Grueskin, attorney, Michael S. Mandell, attorney, Robert
Richie, Executive Director, FairVote, and Joseph F. Zimmerman, Professor, Political Science, SUNY-Albany,
EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL
POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.440-441.
The Electoral College is not the bulwark of influence for the less-populous states in the U.S. Constitution. The
bulwark of influence for the less-populous states is the equal representation of the states in the U.S. Senate. The
13 least-populous states (with 3% of the nation's population) have 25% of the votes in the U.S. Senate -- a very
significant source of political clout. However, the 13 least-populous states (i.e., those with three or four electoral
votes) have only 26 extra votes in the Electoral College by virtue of the two-vote bonus -- not a large number in
relation to the overall total of 538 electoral votes. Although the 13 least-populous states cast 3% of the nation's
popular vote while possessing 6% of the electoral votes, the extra 3% is a minor numerical factor in the context
of a presidential election. More importantly, this small theoretical advantage is negated by the fact that the
least-populous states are equally divided between the two major political parties and because the one-party
character of 12 of the 13 least-populous states makes them irrelevant in presidential elections.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
69
NOVEMBER 2011
DIRECT ELECTION SUPERIOR: ANSWERS TO: "SMALL STATES" cont'd
3.
"BONUS" ELECTORAL VOTES FOR SMALL STATES HAVE LITTLE MEANINGFUL EFFECT IN
PRACTICE -- DO NOT ENHANCE THEIR INFLUENCE
John R. Koza, PhD, Barry Fadem, attorney, Mark Grueskin, attorney, Michael S. Mandell, attorney, Robert
Richie, Executive Director, FairVote, and Joseph F. Zimmerman, Professor, Political Science, SUNY-Albany,
EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL
POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.22.
In short, the two-vote bonus established by the Constitution to enhance the influence of the small states exists
today in form; however, the nearly unanimous use by the states of the winner-take-all rule robs these bonus
electoral votes of any political substance. If, hypothetically, the Constitution had given each state a bonus of four
electoral votes (instead of just two), the 12 non-competitive small states would then collectively have 64
electoral votes (16 warranted by population plus 48 bonus electoral votes). Even then, these states still would not
have any meaningful influence in presidential elections. A competitive state, such as Ohio with only 20 electoral
votes, would remain far more important in terms of practical politics than the 12 non-competitive small states.
Political power in a system based on the statewide winner-take-all rule comes from being a closely divided
battleground state -- not from mathematical bonuses.
4.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE SHIFTS VOTING POWER FROM PEOPLE IN LOW POPULATION STATES TO
THOSE IN SWING STATES
John R. Koza, PhD, Barry Fadem, attorney, Mark Grueskin, attorney, Michael S. Mandell, attorney, Robert
Richie, Executive Director, FairVote, and Joseph F. Zimmerman, Professor, Political Science, SUNY-Albany,
EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL
POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.441.
The states that are important in the presidential election can usually be identified very early in each election
cycle -- even before the party nominations are settled. In the spring of 2008, both major political parties
acknowledged that there would be 14 battleground states (involving only 166 of the nation's 538 electoral votes)
in the 2008 presidential election. In other words, two-thirds of the states were regarded as irrelevant even before
the national nominating conventions were held. New Hampshire (with 4 electoral votes) was the only
less-populous state that was identified as being in this group of battleground states. The net result is that the
current system shifts power from voters in the low-population states to voters in a handful of closely divided
battleground states (almost all of which are more populous states).
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
70
NOVEMBER 2011
DIRECT ELECTION SUPERIOR: ANSWERS TO: "SMALL STATES" cont'd
5.
LOW POPULATION STATES ARE THE MOST DISADVANTAGED UNDER THE CURRENT SYSTEM
John R. Koza, PhD, Barry Fadem, attorney, Mark Grueskin, attorney, Michael S. Mandell, attorney, Robert
Richie, Executive Director, FairVote, and Joseph F. Zimmerman, Professor, Political Science, SUNY-Albany,
EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL
POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.434.
Far from being "protected," the least-populous states are the most disadvantaged group of states under the
current system of electing the President. Although the least-populous states theoretically benefit from receiving
two extra electoral votes (corresponding to their two U.S. Senators), this "bonus" does not, in practice, translate
into political power. Political power in presidential elections comes from being a closely divided battleground
state -- not from the two-vote bonus conferred on all states in the Electoral College. Under the winner-take-all
rule (i.e., awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each
separate state), candidates have no reason to visit, advertise in, organize in, poll in, or pay attention to the
concerns of voters in states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. Instead, candidates
concentrate their attention on a small handful of closely divided battleground states. This means that voters in
the vast majority of the states are ignored in presidential elections. In 2004, candidates concentrated over
two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states; over 80% in nine states; and over 99% of their
money in 16 states. In 2008, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their campaign events and ad money in
just six states, and 98% in 15 states. The reason that the least-populous states are the most disadvantaged group
of states under the current system is that almost all of them are reliably Democratic or Republican in presidential
races. Presidential candidates have nothing to lose, and nothing to gain, by paying attention to the least-populous
states. The least-populous states are not ignored because of their low population, but because they are not closely
divided battleground states.
6.
ELECTORAL POWER IS DETERMINED BY SWING STATUS, NOT ELECTORAL VOTES -- NO
BENEFIT TO SMALL STATES UNDER THE CURRENT SYSTEM
John R. Koza, PhD, Barry Fadem, attorney, Mark Grueskin, attorney, Michael S. Mandell, attorney, Robert
Richie, Executive Director, FairVote, and Joseph F. Zimmerman, Professor, Political Science, SUNY-Albany,
EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL
POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.435-436.
However, political power does not arise from the number of electoral votes that a state possesses, but, instead,
from whether the state is a closely divided battleground state. There were 40 post-convention campaign events in
2008 in the closely divided battleground state of Pennsylvania, whereas the 12 least-populous non-battleground
states received only three (which were "exceptions that prove the rule"). In short, the 12 least-populous
non-battleground states receive almost no visits, advertising, polling, or policy consideration by presidential
candidates because the outcomes in those states are foregone conclusions. In contrast, the winner-take-all
method of awarding electoral votes makes the 12 million people in Pennsylvania the center of attention.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
71
NOVEMBER 2011
DIRECT ELECTION SUPERIOR: ANSWERS TO: "SMALL STATES" cont'd
7.
DIRECT ELECTION WOULD INCREASE THE RELATIVE VALUE OF VOTES IN LOW POPULATION
STATES RELATIVE TO THE STATUS QUO
John R. Koza, PhD, Barry Fadem, attorney, Mark Grueskin, attorney, Michael S. Mandell, attorney, Robert
Richie, Executive Director, FairVote, and Joseph F. Zimmerman, Professor, Political Science, SUNY-Albany,
EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL
POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.436-437.
Note that the 12 least-populous non-battleground states are not ignored because they are sparsely populated.
Indeed, presidential candidates pay considerable attention to the only closely divided low-population state. New
Hampshire (with four electoral votes) received 12 of the 300 post-convention campaign general election
campaign events in 2008. Note that we are talking here about the post-convention campaign -- not New
Hampshire's influential early presidential primary. Meanwhile, the voters of the 12 other least-populous states
were ignored because the political division of their voters was outside the 46% -- 54% range that determines
(more or less) whether presidential candidates consider a state to be worth contesting. The 12 least-populous
non-battleground states were not ignored because they have low population, but because they are safely
Democratic or Republican in the general election campaign. A national popular vote would make a voter in each
of the 12 least-populous non-battleground states as important as a voter in New Hampshire. A national popular
vote would make a vote cast in a low-population state as important as a vote cast in Pennsylvania. The National
Popular Vote plan would make every vote important in every state and every presidential election. In short, a
national popular vote would force candidates to pay attention to the issues important broadly to Americans, not
just to those in battleground states.
8.
THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE WINNER-TAKE-ALL SYSTEM DOES LITTLE TO HELP SMALL STATES
John R. Koza, PhD, Barry Fadem, attorney, Mark Grueskin, attorney, Michael S. Mandell, attorney, Robert
Richie, Executive Director, FairVote, and Joseph F. Zimmerman, Professor, Political Science, SUNY-Albany,
EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL
POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.14-15.
The less populous states are similarly affected by the statewide winner- take-all rule. As part of the political
compromise that led to the Constitution, the Founding Fathers intended to confer a certain amount of extra
influence on the less populous states by giving every state a bonus of two electoral votes corresponding to its
two U.S. Senators. Again, tables 1.1 through 1.4 and figure 1.1 show that the Founding Fathers did not achieve
their objective. Because small states are apt to be one-party states, 12 of the 13 (92%) least populous states are
noncompetitive in presidential elections. Non-competitive states -- with or without a bonus of two extra electoral
votes -- simply do not matter in presidential politics. The Founders' intended allocation of political influence was
not achieved because the political effect of the mathematical bonus provided by the Constitution was trumped by
the nearly universal adoption by the states of the winner-take-all rule.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
72
NOVEMBER 2011
DIRECT ELECTION SUPERIOR: ANSWERS TO: "STATE INTERESTS"
1.
STATE INTERESTS DON'T EXIST, AND EVEN IF THEY DID, THEY ARE NOT WORTH PROTECTING
George C. Edwards, Professor, Political Science, Texas A&M University, WHY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE
IS BAD FOR AMERICA, 2005, p.151.
For two centuries. supporters of the electoral college have built their arguments on a series of faulty premises.
We cannot justify the electoral college as a result of the framers' coherent design based on clear political
principles. The founders did not articulate a theory to justify political inequality. Instead, the electoral college
was a jerry-rigged improvisation formulated in a desperate effort to reach a compromise that would allow the
Constitutional Convention to adjourn and take the entire Constitution to the people. We have also seen that the
electoral college does not protect important interests that would be overlooked or harmed under a system of
direct election of the president. States -- including states with small populations -- do not embody coherent,
unified interests and communities, and they have little need for protection. Even if they did, the electoral college
does not provide it. Contrary to the claims of its supporters, candidates do not pay attention to small states. The
electoral college actually distorts the campaign so that candidates ignore many large and most small states and
devote most of their attention to competitive states.
2.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE DOES NOT PROTECT STATE INTERESTS
Bradford Plummer, "The Indefensible Electoral College," MOTHER JONES, 10-8-04,
http://motherjones.com/politics/2004/10/indefensible-electoral-college, accessed 10-3-11.
It protects state interests! States don't really have coherent "interests," so it's hard to figure out exactly what this
means. (Is there something, for instance, that all New Yorkers want purely by virtue of being New Yorkers?)
Under the current system, presidents rarely campaign on local issues anyways -- when George Edwards analyzed
campaign speeches from 1996 and 2000, he found only a handful that even mentioned local issues. And that's as
it should be. We have plenty of Congressmen and Senators who cater to local concerns. The president should
take a broader view of the national interest, not beholden to any one state or locale.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
73
NOVEMBER 2011
DIRECT ELECTION SUPERIOR: ANSWERS TO:
"THIRD PARTY/RUNOFF 'CONCERNS"
1.
THIRD PARTY CONCERNS DON'T JUSTIFY AN ELECTORAL COLLEGE
Bradford Plummer, "The Indefensible Electoral College," MOTHER JONES, 10-8-04,
http://motherjones.com/politics/2004/10/indefensible-electoral-college, accessed 10-3-11.
The ultimate argument against the electoral college is that it would encourage the rise of third parties. It might.
But remember, third parties already play a role in our current system, and have helped swing the election at least
four times in the last century -- in 1912, 1968, 1992 and 2000. Meanwhile, almost every other office in the
country is filled by direct election, and third parties play an extremely small role in those races. There are just
too many social and legal obstacles blocking the rise of third parties. Because the Democratic and Republican
parties tend to be sprawling coalitions rather than tightly-knit homogenous groups, voters have every incentive
to work "within the system". Likewise, in a direct election, the two parties would be more likely to rally their
partisans and promote voter turnout, which would in turn strengthen the two-party system. And if all else fails,
most states have laws limiting third party ballot access anyways. Abolishing the electoral college won't change
that. It's official: The electoral college is unfair, outdated, and irrational. The best arguments in favor of it are
mostly assertions without much basis in reality. And the arguments against direct elections are spurious at best.
It's hard to say this, but Bob Dole was right: Abolish the electoral college!
2.
RISK OF CANDIDATE/PARTY PROLIFERATION IS LOW -- NON-PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS PROVE
John R. Koza, PhD, Barry Fadem, attorney, Mark Grueskin, attorney, Michael S. Mandell, attorney, Robert
Richie, Executive Director, FairVote, and Joseph F. Zimmerman, Professor, Political Science, SUNY-Albany,
EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL
POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.478-479.
MYTH: A national popular vote will result in a proliferation of candidates, Presidents being elected with 15% of
the vote, and a breakdown of the two-party system.
QUICK ANSWER: * If an Electoral College type of arrangement were essential for avoiding a proliferation of
candidates (and 15% winners), we should see evidence of these conjectured outcomes in elections that do not
employ such an arrangement. * Historical experience in over 5,000 elections for state chief executive shows no
evidence of the conjectured proliferation of candidates or the conjectured 15% winners in elections in which the
winner is the candidate who receives the most popular votes. * Duverger's law (which is based on worldwide
studies of elections) asserts that plurality-vote elections do not result in a proliferation of candidates or
candidates being elected with tiny percentages of the vote. * The two-party system is, in fact, sustained by the
plurality-vote rule.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
74
NOVEMBER 2011
DIRECT ELECTION SUPERIOR: ANSWERS TO:
"THIRD PARTY/RUNOFF 'CONCERNS" cont'd
3.
NO RISK OF VOTE FRAGMENTATION -- EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE PROVES
John R. Koza, PhD, Barry Fadem, attorney, Mark Grueskin, attorney, Michael S. Mandell, attorney, Robert
Richie, Executive Director, FairVote, and Joseph F. Zimmerman, Professor, Political Science, SUNY-Albany,
EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL
POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.479-480.
We can easily test Ross's conjectured outcome against actual historical experience and facts. If an Electoral
College type of arrangement were essential for avoiding Ross's conjectured outcome, we should see evidence of
this outcome in elections that do not employ an Electoral College. When elections are conducted in which the
winner is the candidate who receives the most popular votes, candidates do not, in actual practice, win the office
with low percentages of the vote (and certainly not percentages such as 15%). In a study of the 918 elections for
governor in the United States between 1948 and 2009 conducted by FairVote: * The winning candidate received
more than 50% of the vote in 91% of the elections. * The winning candidate received more than 45% of the vote
in 98% of the elections. * The winning candidate received more than 40% of the vote in 99% of the elections. *
No winning candidate received less than 35% of the popular vote. In the real world, there aren't any 15%
winners in elections in which the winner is the candidate with the most votes. There isn't any proliferation of
candidates. There isn't any fracturing of the electorate. Elections for U.S. Senate, other statewide offices, and
other offices confirm this pattern.
4.
PLURALITY WINNER RULE TENDS TO PROTECT THE TWO PARTY SYSTEM ANYWAY
John R. Koza, PhD, Barry Fadem, attorney, Mark Grueskin, attorney, Michael S. Mandell, attorney, Robert
Richie, Executive Director, FairVote, and Joseph F. Zimmerman, Professor, Political Science, SUNY-Albany,
EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL
POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.480.
In political science, Duverger's law asserts that a plurality-rule election system tends to favor a two-party system.
Maurice Duverger, the French sociologist who observed this tendency in election systems around the world,
suggests that plurality voting favors a two-party system because political groups with broadly similar platforms
tend to form alliances because it increases their chances of winning office. Voters generally desert weak parties
or candidates on the grounds that they have no chance of winning. In practice, ordinary plurality voting
discourages the formation of niche parties and candidacies by rewarding the formation of broad coalitions in
which various groups and interests join together in order to win the most votes (and thereby win office). The
reason that ordinary plurality voting has this effect is that a vote cast for a splinter candidate frequently produces
the politically counter-productive effect of helping the major-party candidate whose views are diametrically
opposite of those of the voter. For example, votes cast for Bob Barr (the Libertarian Party candidate for President
in 2008) made it easier for Barack Obama to win the electoral votes of North Carolina, and votes cast for Ralph
Nader (the Green Party candidate) in 2000 made it easier for George W. Bush to win the electoral votes of
Florida and New Hampshire.
5.
DIRECT VOTING WILL NOT ENCOURAGE MORE THIRD PARTY CANDIDATES
John R. Koza, PhD, Barry Fadem, attorney, Mark Grueskin, attorney, Michael S. Mandell, attorney, Robert
Richie, Executive Director, FairVote, and Joseph F. Zimmerman, Professor, Political Science, SUNY-Albany,
EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A STATE-BASED PLAN FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL
POPULAR VOTE, Third Edition, 2011, p.482.
The two-party system in the United States (which dominates the electoral landscape for the vast majority of
elective offices in the country) is not sustained by the existence of the winner-take-all rule for filling the single
office of the Presidency. Instead, the two-party system is the consequence of the plurality voting system in which
the candidate who receives the most popular votes wins the office. There is no reason to expect the emergence of
some unique, new political dynamic that would promote multiple candidacies if the President were elected in the
same manner as every other elected official in the United States.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
75
NOVEMBER 2011
ELECTORAL COLLEGE SUPERIOR: TOPSHELF
1.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE PROVIDES NECESSARY CHECKS AND BALANCES THAT PROTECT OUR
LIBERTY AND FORM OF GOVERNMENT
Nick Dranias, constitutional policy director, Goldwater Institute, "No Matter Who Wins, Protect the Electoral
College," Goldwater Institute Daily Email, 11-4-08, http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/article/2603, accessed
10-13-11.
Every four years, the Electoral College is attacked as an affront to genuine democracy. What typically starts as a
low level complaint before the election eventually becomes a full-scale grievance. These attacks miss the point
of the design of our Constitutional Republic. The Electoral College was never meant to facilitate the popular
election of the President. Indeed, our system of representative government, federalism, separation of powers and
individual rights was never meant to guarantee direct democracy. These structures were meant to preserve
liberty. The elements of democracy contained in our system of government are a means to that end, rather than
the end itself. Freedom requires the will of the majority to be moderated through checks and balances. On the
national level, freedom also requires respect for the equal sovereignty of each state. From this perspective, the
Electoral College remains a crucial component of the Constitution's design. It moderates the influence of the
most populous states by giving the least populous states a bigger voice. In so doing, it reinforces the principles
of federalism and moderated majority rule. There is no more reason to eliminate the Electoral College than there
is to dissolve the Senate, which gives all states equal representation regardless of population, or to deny the
smallest states their constitutional guarantee of at least one representative in the House. Simply put, an attack on
the Electoral College is an attack on the checks and balances carefully built into the American Republic.
2.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT INTERESTS OF SMALL STATES, SAFEGUARD
OUR DEMOCRACY
Rachel Alexander, attorney, "Don't Get Rid of the Electoral College," ENTER STAGE RIGHT, 10-10-11,
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1011/1011ec.htm, accessed 10-13-11.
Meddling with the Electoral College is a bad idea. It would decentralize elections and nationalize politics. A
national popular vote would transfer voting power to large urban cities favoring Democrats. Even the New York
Times has editorialized against tampering with the Electoral College, not wanting a solution favoring
Republicans like that being proposed in Pennsylvania. If direct democracy is such a good idea, then why not get
rid of the U.S. Senate? It is the same concept. No matter how small a state's population, it has two U.S. Senators.
This is for good reason. We allot a larger proportion of representation to smaller states in order to provide them
with adequate representation. Otherwise the heavily dense urban areas of larger states would bulldoze over the
interests of smaller, more rural states. Don't be fooled by the hype. The Electoral College's system of
representative democracy and federalism is the backbone of this country, not mob rule.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
76
NOVEMBER 2011
ELECTORAL COLLEGE SUPERIOR: TOPSHELF cont'd
3.
WINNER-TAKE-ALL SYSTEM IS NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN OUR TWO PARTY SYSTEM -- THE
COUNTRY WOULD BECOME UNGOVERNABLE
James Pontuso, Professor, Government and Foreign Affairs, Hampden-Sydney College, "The Electoral College
(Keep It, But Reform It,) BRITANNICA BLOG, 10-9-08,
http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2008/10/why-we-need-but-need-to-reform-the-electoral-college/, accessed
10-13-11.
What few commentators have failed to point out is the Electoral College has actually worked BETTER than it
was intended -- different, but better. The winner-take-all provision, the very one that caused the confusion in the
election of 2000, maintains America's two-party system. Voters do not like to throw their votes away, and when
they realize that a vote cast for a third party candidate might have the result of electing a person whose views
they oppose, they tend to actually cast their vote for one of the two main candidates -- the one they dislike the
least. This is exactly what happened in the last days before the 2000 election when public opinion polls show
that Ralph Nadar's supporters moved to Gore in large numbers. It is surrounding the calculation that voters make
as a result of the winner-take-all provision that keeps America's loosely organized parties viable. Without the
winner-take-all provision of the Electoral College, America would have a multiple-party system, since there
would be less reason to support one of the two major party's candidates. Since the President is the only
nationally elected official, it is the prize of the winning the presidency that keeps the two parties from splitting
first into regional parties and then into ideological or interest-based parties. It is likely that, without a two-party
system at the presidential level, the country would break down to its constituent interest groups. There would be
a women's party, an environmental party, a business party, a men's party, a Southern party, and on and on. The
United States would become ungovernable. The American political landscape would begin to resemble Italy's
where there have been 52 governments -- or executives -- since World War II.
4.
ABANDONING THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE ONLY MAGNIFIES ALL OF THE PROBLEMS THAT
THEY IDENTIFY
Brendan Loy, attorney, "Count Every Vote -- All 538 of Them: A Pragmatic Defense of the Electoral College,"
3-30-08, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1014431, accessed 10-6-11.
The bottom line is this: advocates of direct election often say that the Electoral College is undemocratic,
anachronistic and creates "the potential for constitutional crisis." What they fail to recognize is that their
proposed alternative would still have the same potential, and with less hope of speedy and sure resolution to the
crisis when it arises. They would, in short, create the potential for a true constitutional crisis, one that cannot
reliably be resolved by inauguration day. They would take this risk in the name of pursuing a chimera: a system
that will always produce an indisputable "right winner." But no such system exists. Realistically, the choice is
between various imperfect systems -- and for nearly two centuries, the admittedly imperfect Electoral College
has done a pretty good job of balancing the twin purposes of presidential elections, almost always achieving
both. The case for abandoning this system, and replacing it with an unproven alternative that might well be
worse, simply has not been made.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
77
NOVEMBER 2011
ELECTORAL COLLEGE SUPERIOR: TOPSHELF cont'd
5.
DIRECT ELECTIONS RISK A LEGITIMACY CRISIS THAT COULD THREATEN THE ENTIRE
PRESIDENCY
Brendan Loy, attorney, "Count Every Vote -- All 538 of Them: A Pragmatic Defense of the Electoral College,"
3-30-08, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1014431, accessed 10-6-11.
As measured against the national popular vote, the Electoral College will very occasionally, in a very close
election, give us the "wrong" president. But it always gives us a president, and does so in a reasonably timely
fashion, well before the January 20 inauguration. It may be unfashionable to defend a system that sometimes
fails to accurately reflect the national popular will, but as long as inversions of the electoral and popular vote
remain rare and limited to very close elections -- ones in which the popular will is hardly overwhelming, and
may indeed be quite unclear -- this admittedly imperfect system is vastly preferable to the alternative. Whatever
its abstract merits, the practical reality is that direct election by national popular vote could, in a razor-close
election, produce a true legitimacy crisis that would threaten to seriously undermine the presidency itself.
6.
DIRECT ELECTION WOULD CREATE SO MUCH INFIGHTING THAT IT WOULD ENSURE A
CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS
James R. Edwards Jr., adjunct fellow, Hudson Institute, "Want a Real Constitutional Crisis? Scrap the Electoral
College," NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE, 2-20-02,
http://old.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-edwards022002.shtml, accessed 10-13-11.
In our over two hundred years' history, the four presidents who won by a majority of the electoral vote while
losing the popular vote each governed legitimately. So did the several presidents who won office with less than a
majority of the popular vote. The electoral college guaranteed that they would. With direct election of U.S.
presidents, the nation would experience acrimony, extremism, factionalism, endless recounts, a weakened
president elected by a plurality, and the loss of important protections of minority rights. Every four years, we'd
have a true constitutional crisis. If you liked the Florida recounts, you'll love direct presidential election.
7.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE ENHANCES THE POLITICAL STRENGTH OF MINORITY GROUPS -LEVERAGE EFFECT
William C. Kimberling, Deputy Director, FEC Office of Election Administration, THE ELECTORAL
COLLEGE, 5-92, http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf, accessed 10-4-11.
Proponents also point out that, far from diminishing minority interests by depressing voter participation, the
Electoral College actually enhances the status of minority groups. This is so because the votes of even small
minorities in a State may make the difference between winning all of that State's electoral votes or none of that
State's electoral votes. And since ethnic minority groups in the United States happen to concentrate in those
States with the most electoral votes, they assume an importance to presidential candidates well out of proportion
to their number. The same principle applies to other special interest groups such as labor unions, farmers,
environmentalists, and so forth. It is because of this "leverage effect" that the presidency, as an institution, tends
to be more sensitive to ethnic minority and other special interest groups than does the Congress as an institution.
Changing to a direct election of the president would therefore actually damage minority interests since their
votes would be overwhelmed by a national popular majority.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
78
NOVEMBER 2011
ELECTORAL COLLEGE SUPERIOR: DEFINITIVE OUTCOME/RECOUNTS
1.
DIRECT ELECTION WOULD LEAD TO COUNTLESS RECOUNT DEBACLES
Lawrence W. Reed, Mackinac Center for Public Policy, "Keep the Electoral College," IDEAS ON LIBERTY, 301, http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=3353, accessed 10-3-11.
Indeed, the closeness of the 2000 election in so many places -- multiple states as well as the nation as a whole -suggests that we should thank our lucky stars the Framers gave us the system we have. It is precisely because of
the Electoral College that the recounting of votes focused on one state instead of many. If the popular vote
decided the winner, we would still be bogged down in questionable recounts in dozens, if not hundreds, of
counties across the country. The potential for mistakes and abuse would have been enormously compounded,
and the cloud over the eventual winner would have been all the more dark and ominous.
2.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE HAS CONSISTENTLY PRODUCED DECISIVE RESULTS -- DIRECT
ELECTION WOULD UNDERMINE CERTAINTY OF OUTCOME
Tara Ross, attorney, "The Electoral College: Enlightened Democracy," LEGAL MEMORANDUM n. 15,
Heritage Foundation, 11-1-04,
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2004/11/The-Electoral-College-Enlightened-Democracy, accessed
10-13-11.
Stability and Certainty in Elections. Historically, most elections have not been close in the Electoral College,
even when the popular vote is close. The Electoral College system, when combined with the winner-take-all
rule, tends to magnify the margin of victory, giving the victor a certain and demonstrable election outcome. The
magnification of the electoral vote can work to solidify the country behind the new President by bestowing an
aura of legitimacy. The election of 1960 was one such close election. John Kennedy won only 49.7 percent of
the popular vote, compared to Nixon's 49.5 percent. However, Kennedy won 56.4 percent of the electoral vote,
compared to Nixon's 40.8 percent. Eight years later, this magnification effect worked in favor of Nixon.
Although he won the popular vote by less than one percent, he won 55.9 percent of the electoral vote to Hubert
Humphrey's 35.5 percent. This magnification effect increases dramatically as popular vote totals spread apart.
For instance, in 1952, the winning candidate won 55.1 percent of the popular vote, but a much larger 83.2
percent of the Electoral College vote. In 1956, the difference was 57.4 percent (popular vote) to 86.1 percent
(electoral vote). In 1964, it was 61.1 percent (popular vote) to 90.3 percent (electoral vote). Presidential elections
since 1804 have generally seen wide margins of victory in the Electoral College. These margins have gotten
wider, on average, through the years as the winner-take-all rule has been adopted by more states and the
two-party system has solidified. Since 1804, only two elections -- those in 1876 and 2000-were won by fewer
than 20 electoral votes. Six elections were won by fewer than 50 electoral votes: Four of these were held in the
1800s. Of the 26 elections held between 1900 and 2000, 17 Presidents have been elected after winning the
electoral vote by a margin of 200 votes or more. These consistently wide margins of victory in the Electoral
College have come about despite the fact that the margin between the top two candidates in the popular vote was
less than 10 percent in 14 of the 26 elections held since 1900. This margin exceeded 20 percent only five times
since 1900. A direct popular election, by contrast, would not grant certainty nearly as often. Close popular votes,
such as those discussed above, could easily result in demands for recounts on a national scale. America rarely
has close electoral votes. It does, however, have close popular votes fairly consistently. Do Americans really
want a presidential election system that could result in hotly contested recounts nearly every election?
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
79
NOVEMBER 2011
ELECTORAL COLLEGE SUPERIOR: DEFINITIVE OUTCOME/RECOUNTS cont'd
3.
DIRECT ELECTION WOULD NATIONALIZE ELECTION DISPUTES
John Samples, Director, Center for Representative Government, Cato Institute, Testimony before the
Pennsylvania House Committee on Intergovernmental Affairs, 10-18-07,
http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-js-10182007.html, accessed 10-3-11.
More practical problems exist. As in 2000, the struggles associated with an election dispute are likely to be
confined to one state. The same would not be true of the NPV alternative. Candidates or party leaders would
have reason to dispute results throughout the nation to overturn close outcomes. Indeed, more results will be
disputed since the necessary votes to overturn a national result could be found nationwide. We are ill-prepared
for that outcome. As political scientist David Lublin has noted, the parties and the media would find it difficult
to supervise recounts and litigation around the country. As Lublin argues, "We might not even be able to have a
national recount. All existing recount laws were designed to address elections within states.
4.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE IS IMPORTANT -- GIVES US A DEFINITIVE OUTCOME TO OUR ELECTIONS
Howard Fink, Professor of Law, Emeritus, Ohio State University, "Why We Shouldn't Abolish the Electoral
College," TAMPA BAY ONLINE, 4-10-11,
http://beta2.tbo.com/news/opinion/2011/apr/10/VWOPINO1-why-we-shouldnt-abolish-the-electoral-col-ar-1012
79/, accessed 10-4-11.
But in general, the system has worked to its purpose, ending the election process with a result that is deemed
authentic. It is highly important for our system never to have an interruption or great doubt about the legitimacy
of our leadership. Indeed, when the Supreme Court ended the recount in Florida in 2000, the result was
immediately accepted by both candidates. Basically, the Electoral College provides that each state shall have a
number of electors equal to the number of members in the House of Representatives and the senators from that
state -- the most populous states have the most electors, but all states have at least three because they have two
senators and at least one member of Congress.
5.
DIRECT ELECTION WOULD ONLY NATIONALIZE ELECTION-CONTESTATION LITIGATION
John Samples, Director, Center for Representative Government, Cato Institute, "A Critique of the National
Popular Vote Plan for Electing the President," POLICY ANALYSIS n. 622, 10-13-08,
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-622.pdf, accessed 10-4-11.
As in 2000, it is possible that one state will experience an election dispute that could affect the outcome of the
presidential race. The struggles associated with such a dispute will be relatively confined. The same would not
be true of the NPV alternative. Rational candidates or party leaders would have reason to dispute results
throughout the nation to overturn close outcomes. Indeed, what constitutes a close election would become
broader since the necessary votes to overturn the result could be found nationwide. That would be more difficult
and more contentious than the current system. As political scientist David Lublin has noted, the parties and the
media would have difficulty supervising recounts and litigation around the country. As Lublin argues, "We
might not even be able to have a national recount. All existing recount laws were designed to address elections
within states.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
80
NOVEMBER 2011
ELECTORAL COLLEGE SUPERIOR: DEFINITIVE OUTCOME/RECOUNTS cont'd
6.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE LIMITS RECOUNTS -- HELPS STABILIZE OUR ELECTION SYSTEM
Howard Fink, Professor of Law, Emeritus, Ohio State University, "Why We Shouldn't Abolish the Electoral
College," TAMPA BAY ONLINE, 4-10-11,
http://beta2.tbo.com/news/opinion/2011/apr/10/VWOPINO1-why-we-shouldnt-abolish-the-electoral-col-ar-1012
79/, accessed 10-4-11.
Still, why isn't it done if a majority of Americans favor it in theory? Because it has a huge downside. We have
had very close elections often, especially when there was a third or fourth person running -- Lincoln was barely
elected, with less than a majority of votes, as was Bill Clinton. President Kennedy led Richard Nixon by about
125,000 votes nationally, and had he not carried Illinois and a few other close state votes, he would have lost. So
it is natural to ask why not create a system where the winner of a majority of votes nationally is elected
president. Simple. If we had not had the Electoral College, we would have found it extremely difficult, if not
almost impossible, as in 1876, to recount the votes. In the current system, there can be recounts in states in
which the election is close -- but they are held only in those states where the outcome might be changed by a
recount. But were there no Electoral College, every vote in every state could be sought to be recounted because
even in those states which went overwhelmingly for the national election loser, their votes would count as much
as those in other states that voted for the winner nationally. Can you imagine the chaos and crisis of a national
recount? Let us not be naive. There is machine politics, and there are political bosses in some states that have
been known to affect the election. But the most they can "steal" is their own state. Think in a national election
how many votes could be "found" in, say, Texas or California or Ohio or Florida. All votes found across the
country would count the same. The recounts would be impossible.
7.
RECOUNTS WOULD BE INEVITABLE UNDER DIRECT ELECTIONS
Brendan Loy, attorney, "Count Every Vote -- All 538 of Them: A Pragmatic Defense of the Electoral College,"
3-30-08, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1014431, accessed 10-6-11.
These problems cannot be ignored, because without question, margins will sometimes be narrow. In 2000, for
example, Al Gore's popular-vote margin over George W. Bush was barely one-half of a percent of the votes cast,
which would be close enough to trigger a recount in some states. Judge Posner acknowledged this point in a
review of the Bush-Gore dispute, noting that "if Presidents were elected by popular vote, a nationwide recount
might have been unavoidable in 2000 because Gore's margin was so small." Yet that race looks like a landslide
compared to Kennedy's 0.16 percent advantage over Nixon in 1960, a hairbreadth edge that would have been
very difficult to accept as final without the availability of a national recount to confirm the result. Even closer
was the election of 1880, in which James Garfield defeated Winfield Hancock in the national popular vote by
just 9,070 votes, or 0.098 percent.
8.
COUNTING PROBLEMS ONLY GET BIGGER AS WE EXPAND THE NUMBER OF VOTES -- REAL
ADVANTAGE TO THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE SYSTEM
Brendan Loy, attorney, "Count Every Vote -- All 538 of Them: A Pragmatic Defense of the Electoral College,"
3-30-08, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1014431, accessed 10-6-11.
If the dispute over Florida's election in 2000 proved anything, it is that accurately measuring the will of millions
of voters is very, very difficult. Again quoting Judge Posner, "the counting of millions of ballots by any method
is liable to error." And yet Florida's vote total was just under 6 million;19 the difficulties would become far
greater if we needed an accurate national count of more than 100 million votes. Many steps can and should be
taken to improve the accuracy of our voting system, regardless of whether the Electoral College is retained. But
we must be realistic: there will always be the potential for disagreement about the result when the vote is close
enough, and our electoral system must be robust enough to retain its legitimacy, functionality and timeliness
even when such disputes occur.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
81
NOVEMBER 2011
ELECTORAL COLLEGE SUPERIOR: DEFINITIVE OUTCOME/RECOUNTS cont'd
9.
DIRECT ELECTION BAD -- REMOVES OUR ABILITY TO QUARANTINE DISPUTES TO PARTICULAR
STATES
Brendan Loy, attorney, "Count Every Vote -- All 538 of Them: A Pragmatic Defense of the Electoral College,"
3-30-08, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1014431, accessed 10-6-11.
One of the most important lost safeguards, and one that cannot be recaptured by any possible permutation or
amendment of a direct election proposal, is the loss of the current system's invaluable tendency to "quarantine"
election disputes to individual states. Even in the wildest imaginable Electoral College scenario, only a small
handful of states would ever be truly "in play" and relevant to the determination of the winner. In 2004, the only
such state was Ohio; in 2000, it was Florida; in 1960, Texas and Illinois; in 1888 and 1880, New York; in 1876,
South Carolina, Louisiana, Florida and Oregon. Outside of these states, any discrepancies or irregularities in
those elections simply did not matter, either because they happened in a state too small to affect the national
outcome or (more often) because the winning candidate's margin in the state in question was too large to be
seriously threatened. In a direct election system, by contrast, each state's individual margin does not matter; the
state tallies only matter as part of a larger whole, so the difference between, say, a 1,000,000- vote lead in a
given state and a 1,005,000-lead in that same state is of equal significance to the difference between a 2,500-vote
lead and a 2,500-vote deficit. In either case, the difference is 5,000 votes out of the national total. This portends
an enormous increase in the numbers of challenges and lawsuits in the event of a close election.
10.
DIRECT ELECTION WOULD RESULT IN A NATIONAL LITIGATION DEBACLE
Brendan Loy, attorney, "Count Every Vote -- All 538 of Them: A Pragmatic Defense of the Electoral College,"
3-30-08, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1014431, accessed 10-6-11.
Moreover, because the challenges to a national popular election would originate in different state court systems,
and probably the federal court system as well, it would be very difficult to streamline these lawsuits into a single
case or small group of cases working their way up the appellate chain toward a single final resolution, as
occurred in Florida in 2000. Jurisdictional issues would likely prevent such streamlining, and even if not,
consolidating cases from multiple states would create a nightmarishly complex set of facts for any court to
analyze and adjudicate. Simply put, the state-by-state electoral "quarantine" created by the Electoral College is
the only thing holding back the floodgates of judicial chaos in the event of a close election. A tight race under a
direct election system could lead to a torrent of litigation that would make Florida 2000 look like an exercise in
litigious restraint. The end result could be paralysis and constitutional crisis, seriously undermining the system's
ability to fulfill the "undisputed and timely winner" purpose of presidential elections.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
82
NOVEMBER 2011
ELECTORAL COLLEGE SUPERIOR: EXTREMIST CANDIDATES
1.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE ENCOURAGES CANDIDATES TO ADOPT MORE MODERATE,
MAINSTREAM STANCES
James R. Edwards Jr., adjunct fellow, Hudson Institute, "Want a Real Constitutional Crisis? Scrap the Electoral
College," NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE, 2-20-02,
http://old.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-edwards022002.shtml, accessed 10-13-11.
The Constitution ensures presidential election by what Thomas Jefferson called a reasonable majority. As a 1970
Senate Judiciary Committee report noted, "The central character of American politics requires that we be
concerned not just with the size of the majorities, but with their character." The report adds: "[O]nly those
majorities are entitled to rule which respect the rights of those who do not agree with them." The electoral
college fosters moderation and compromise. A candidate who could win the presidency by popular election
alone would look very different from one chosen by a majority of all the states' electors. Not only the winner, but
all presidential candidates would look less like Bush and Gore and more like Ralph Nader or Lyndon LaRouche.
The candidates able to win the White House by a simple majority -- or, more likely, a plurality of the popular
vote -- would hold more extreme positions on more divisive issues. For comparison, consider a typical House
candidate and his state's U.S. Senate candidates. While Senate candidates must attract broad support from the
diversity of the state's electorate, the more homogeneous House districts are represented by such liberals as
Maxine Waters and such conservatives as Bob Barr. The campaign issues in a House race also reflect more
localized, harder stances. Presidential candidates, on the other hand, hold more moderate positions on national
issues. Thank the electoral-college system for this.
2.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE ENCOURAGES POLITICAL MODERATION AND COMPROMISE
Tara Ross, Testimony before the Nevada Senate committee on Legislative Operations and Elections, 5-7-09,
http://www.saveourstates.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Written-Testimony_Nevada.pdf, accessed 10-6-11.
NPV proponents argue that the President should have the support of most Americans. But in real life, "most"
Americans will never agree on their ideal candidate. Individuals' opinions differ too greatly. Given the general
inability to obtain majority consensus (or even the consensus of a large plurality), the Electoral College provides
the country with the next best alternative. Electing Presidents by states' electoral votes, rather than individuals'
votes, creates a method of electing a President who is a good compromise candidate for most Americans, as
represented by their states. The Electoral College requires moderation, compromise, and coalition-building from
any candidate before he can be successful.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
83
NOVEMBER 2011
ELECTORAL COLLEGE SUPERIOR: EXTREMIST CANDIDATES cont'd
3.
DIRECT ELECTION FRAGMENTS THE ELECTORATE -- ENCOURAGES VOTING FOR EXTREMIST
CANDIDATES
Tara Ross, attorney, "The Electoral College: Enlightened Democracy," LEGAL MEMORANDUM n. 15,
Heritage Foundation, 11-1-04,
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2004/11/The-Electoral-College-Enlightened-Democracy, accessed
10-13-11.
Some proponents of a direct election system dispute this analysis. Removing the Electoral College, they argue,
would not undermine the two-party system. However, these proponents make the mistake of assuming that they
can change one factor while leaving all other dynamics unchanged. Predictions of what would happen in a direct
election system should assume that it is at least possible that changing the election procedure will cause more
than one aspect of the political process to change. Indeed, one has only to look to history or comparative
governments to see how easily such a system could disintegrate into multi-candidate races, which would, in turn,
devolve into a system of regular runoffs or fractious coalition governments. Consider the election of 1992. One
of the primary factors that prevented some people from voting for Perot was that they felt their vote would be
"wasted." A vote for Ross Perot is a vote for Bill Clinton, voters were told. Now imagine the 1992 election
without an Electoral College. Suddenly, the incentives change. Clinton no longer has to be beaten; he just needs
to be held under some pre-determined percentage (40% in most proposals for change). To get in the runoff, Perot
voters do not need to win; they simply need to overtake George H.W. Bush. A vote for Perot is no longer
wasted. The Reform Party has a specific, achievable goal with which to motivate its supporters. In the actual
1992 election -- even with all the disincentives inherent in the Electoral College system -- Perot received 18.9
percent of the popular vote. Bush received 37.4 percent of the vote, and Clinton received 43.0 percent. Had this
election been a direct popular election, it would have been only three percent away from triggering a runoff.
With such incentives, would not Perot supporters have had a much easier time getting voters to switch their
candidate? Once one runoff has been triggered, why would multiple third parties not jump into the race in future
elections? As such a situation became the norm, more and more candidates would be motivated to enter
presidential contests. Support from a smaller and smaller percentage of the population would be needed to
qualify for the runoff. Over time, candidates would become more and more extreme and uncompromising.
Professor Judith Best explains this dynamic: [T]he splintering of the vote works against the moderate candidates
and works to the advantage of the immoderate, extreme candidates. It does this because the middle is where the
inclusive coalitions can be built. By undermining coalition building prior to the general election, a runoff
fragments the middle, not the extremes; the extremes are rarely fragmented -- fanatics have solidarity.
4.
ELECTORAL SYSTEM PROTECTS US AGAINST DEMAGOGUES
Judith Best, THE CASE AGAINST DIRECT ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT: A DEFENSE OF THE
ELECTORAL COLLEGE, 1975, p.211-212.
Furthermore, direct election would have a profound effect on the kinds of men who would become President. If,
as this analysis has suggested, the direct-election plan would change or even destroy the national
party-convention system, professional party leaders could lose control over the nomination process. Their loss of
control might result in a new breed of candidates, candidates who under the present system would not be
politically eligible. Demagogues, self? nominated, individualistic leaders of impermanent factions, charismatic
leaders riding a single issue might replace the candidates presently recruited because of their moderation,
experience, records of electoral success, and service to permanent party organizations.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
84
NOVEMBER 2011
ELECTORAL COLLEGE SUPERIOR: EXTREMIST CANDIDATES cont'd
5.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE FORCES CANDIDATES TO HAVE BROAD-BASED APPEAL
James R. Edwards Jr., adjunct fellow, Hudson Institute, "Want a Real Constitutional Crisis? Scrap the Electoral
College," NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE, 2-20-02,
http://old.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-edwards022002.shtml, accessed 10-13-11.
Also, the electoral college moderates competing factions, which would certainly flourish under a popular
election scheme. At present, a simple majority of voters -- whether of a political party, a special interest, or a few
large states -- cannot force its will on the nation. That is, the electoral college protects minority rights. The
constitutional majority of electors required from all the states promotes breadth of support for the candidate who
wins the presidency. Remember those blue states on the electoral map? Hypothetically, seven states -- say,
California, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island -- could give a
candidate the 50 million votes George W. Bush and Al Gore each won. But it would be unfair to the nation if a
popular majority from those states alone could choose the president.
6.
DIRECT VOTE WOULD BREAK DOWN THE TWO PARTY SYSTEM, RESULT IN EXTREMIST
CANDIDATES
Tara Ross, Testimony before the Nevada Senate committee on Legislative Operations and Elections, 5-7-09,
http://www.saveourstates.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Written-Testimony_Nevada.pdf, accessed 10-6-11.
The most likely consequence of a change to a direct popular vote is the breakdown of the two-party system.
Today, third-party candidates do not receive much support. In a direct popular election, everything changes. A
vote for Ross Perot or Ralph Nader is no longer "wasted," and the number of presidential candidates would
increase drastically. Voters would fracture their votes across many candidates. The result will be lower vote
totals per candidate and an increased likelihood that two or more candidates will have close popular vote totals.
Recounts would proliferate. Worse, extremist candidates could more easily sway an election, because no
candidate is required to obtain majority support. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that AB 413 does not
include a run-off provision. Electoral votes are given to the winner of any plurality -- even a very small one.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
85
NOVEMBER 2011
ELECTORAL COLLEGE SUPERIOR: FEDERALISM
1.
DIRECT ELECTION WOULD ONLY NATIONALIZE OUR POLITICS -- BOLSTERS THE POWER OF
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, THREATENS INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY
John Samples, Director, Center for Representative Government, Cato Institute, "A Critique of the National
Popular Vote Plan for Electing the President," POLICY ANALYSIS n. 622, 10-13-08,
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-622.pdf, accessed 10-4-11.
The realization of the NPV plan would continue this trend toward nationalization and centralized power. The
president is the most important elected official in the nation. Under the NPV proposal, he or she will be elected
by the nation acting as an electorate. Inevitably, this change will foster the creation of a national consciousness
among Americans, a unified and centralized political identity. The president will thus be empowered as the
choice of this national electoral district; he or she will speak for a plurality of that nation. As the renowned
constitutional scholar Martin Diamond said, direct election of the president will not "increase the democracy of
the election or the directness of the election but the pure nationalness of the election. The sole practical effect of
[direct election] will be to eliminate the States from their share in the political process." A president so elected
may be more likely to pursue national interests at a cost to state or regional concerns because state identities and
considerations will no longer matter at all since the states will no longer exist so far as presidential elections go.
Such a president "might also be likely to pursue policies that enhance or enlarge the scope and power of the
federal government." While direct election may not have strong partisan effects, the further empowering of the
federal government and a subsequent increase in its ambit would run counter to the founding aspirations for
limited government and individual liberty. It would be fully in line with the Progressive emphasis on the national
community, a purely national electorate, and the empowered executive. In other words, if people create
institutions, institutions also create people, and the NPV will lead to a more nationalized and progressive
electorate.
2.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT OUR FEDERALIST SYSTEM
Tara Ross, Testimony before the Nevada Senate committee on Legislative Operations and Elections, 5-7-09,
http://www.saveourstates.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Written-Testimony_Nevada.pdf, accessed 10-6-11.
Electoral College opponents argue that presidential elections are undemocratic. They are wrong. America holds
51 purely democratic elections each presidential election year (one in each state and one in D.C.). Such a process
combines democracy and federalism into one process. The result is that candidates can't win unless they build
nationwide support. Obama can't rely solely on big cities in California. Republicans can't rely solely on Texas.
They must win simultaneous, concurrent majorities nationwide. They can't achieve those victories unless they
reach out to a wide variety of voters. They will fail if they rely upon isolated pockets of support in one region or
among voters in one special interest group. Many dispute that our system creates national coalition-building,
arguing that it instead causes a disproportionate focus on mid-sized "swing" states. These arguments appear true
if we focus on one or a handful of election years in isolation. But if we look at the states' full histories of voting,
we see that the identity of "swing" and "safe" states changes all the time. West Virginia, for example, was
considered a safe Democrat state for years. Since 2000, however, it has been voting Republican. Likewise,
California is often viewed as irreversibly Democrat, but it voted for Republican candidate George H.W. Bush as
recently as 1988. Texas used to be as undeniably Democrat as it is Republican today. States such as Georgia,
Kentucky, and Louisiana all voted for Bill Clinton in the 1990s, but they were considered very safe Republican
states in 2008. Ultimately, the Electoral College ensures that the political parties must reach out to all the states.
As a matter of history, no political party has ever been able to ignore any state for too long without feeling the
ramifications at the polls.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
86
NOVEMBER 2011
ELECTORAL COLLEGE SUPERIOR: FEDERALISM cont'd
3.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE IS A CENTRAL PILLAR OF OUR FEDERALIST SYSTEM -- VITAL TO
PROTECT STATE INTERESTS
Lawrence W. Reed, Mackinac Center for Public Policy, "Keep the Electoral College," IDEAS ON LIBERTY, 301, http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=3353, accessed 10-3-11.
At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, some delegates wanted the popular vote to elect the president. Others
argued that Congress should make the pick. The smaller, less populated states feared, correctly, that under either
of those options they would be swallowed up or ignored by the larger, more populous states. The Electoral
College represented not only a compromise to accommodate the concerns of the small states, but also a singular
act of genius on the part of the Framers. They did not reject the notion of a truly "democratic" election; they
affirmed, in fact, that a democratic election occurring in each state would largely decide each state's vote for
president in the Electoral College. The institution serves as a pillar of our federal system of government, wherein
the states -- which created the central government in the first place -- do not dissolve into an amorphous national
mass but rather, retain a substantial identity and hence, a check on unbridled power in Washington.
4.
DIRECT ELECTION WOULD UNNECESSARILY INCREASE THE POWER OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT
John Samples, Director, Center for Representative Government, Cato Institute, Testimony before the
Pennsylvania House Committee on Intergovernmental Affairs, 10-18-07,
http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-js-10182007.html, accessed 10-3-11.
Third, the NPV proposal continues the nationalization of the United States and centralization of power in the
federal government. Under the NPV proposal, the president will be elected indirectly by the nation acting as an
electorate. Inevitably this change will foster the creation of a more national consciousness among Americans, a
unified and centralized political identity. The president will be the agent of this enhanced national identity. He or
she may be more likely to pursue national interests at a cost to state or regional concerns. Such a president
"might also be likely to pursue policies that enhance or enlarge the scope and power of the federal government."
5.
DIRECT ELECTION THREATENS OUR FEDERALIST SYSTEM
Judith Best, THE CASE AGAINST DIRECT ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT: A DEFENSE OF THE
ELECTORAL COLLEGE, 1975, p.213-214.
Fourth, an electoral system should preserve federalism. The present system fortifies federalism by making the
states the crucial political units in the selection of the President, both by giving coalitions of state and local party
leaders great influence in the nomination process and by requiring statewide victories in the election itself. The
direct-election plan would change this by scuttling the nominating conventions and by making state lines
irrelevant in the general? election contest. Candidates would be liberated from their bonds of dependence on
state and local party organizations, since they could be self-nominated factional leaders or proposed by transient
quasi-political groups. They would be able to select their own constituencies with greater freedom, carving them
out of the states, replacing geographic with issue-oriented constituencies. Paul Freund, a supporter of the
direct-election plan, admits that if the "reform is adopted, the federal character of presidential elections will be
significantly affected; the countervailing distortions in the present procedure will be removed and the value
inhering in the federal nature of the parties themselves must be supported by other means."
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
87
NOVEMBER 2011
ELECTORAL COLLEGE SUPERIOR: FEDERALISM cont'd
6.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE HELPS CONSTRAIN NATIONALIZATION OF POLITICAL POWER
John Samples, Director, Center for Representative Government, Cato Institute, "A Critique of the National
Popular Vote Plan for Electing the President," POLICY ANALYSIS n. 622, 10-13-08,
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-622.pdf, accessed 10-4-11.
The U.S. Constitution allocates presidential electors according to the federalist principle. Anti-federalists feared
the new Constitution would centralize power and threaten liberty as well as subordinate the smaller states to the
larger. The founders sought to fashion institutional compromises that responded to the concerns of the states and
yet created a more workable government than had existed under the Articles of Confederation. With regard to
presidential elections, they pursued a middle course that rejected both election by state legislatures and election
by a national popular vote. The constitutional plan instead offers a compound means of election in which the
states are considered as both co-equals in an association and as unequal members. This same balancing of state
and national elements may be found elsewhere in the Constitution. This general preference for federalism
signaled that the new Constitution would not be wholly national in character and that the national government
would part of a larger design of checks and balances that would temper and restrain political power, a major
concern of both the Founders and their Anti-Federalist critics.
7.
DIRECT ELECTIONS WOULD CRUSH OUR FEDERALIST SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT
William C. Kimberling, Deputy Director, FEC Office of Election Administration, THE ELECTORAL
COLLEGE, 5-92, http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf, accessed 10-4-11.
Finally, its proponents argue quite correctly that the Electoral College maintains a federal system of government
and representation. Their reasoning is that in a formal federal structure, important political powers are reserved
to the component States. In the United States, for example, the House of Representatives was designed to
represent the States according to the size of their population. The States are even responsible for drawing the
district lines for their House seats. The Senate was designed to represent each State equally regardless of its
population. And the Electoral College was designed to represent each State's choice for the presidency (with the
number of each State's electoral votes being the number of its Senators plus the number of its Representatives).
To abolish the Electoral College in favor of a nationwide popular election for president would strike at the very
heart of the federal structure laid out in our Constitution and would lead to the nationalization of our central
government -- to the detriment of the States.
8.
SHOULD NOT TAMPER WITH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE -- THREATENS OUR FEDERAL SYSTEM
William C. Kimberling, Deputy Director, FEC Office of Election Administration, THE ELECTORAL
COLLEGE, 5-92, http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf, accessed 10-4-11.
Indeed, if we become obsessed with government by popular majority as the only consideration, should we not
then abolish the Senate which represents States regardless of population? Should we not correct the minor
distortions in the House (caused by districting and by guaranteeing each State at least one Representative) by
changing it to a system of proportional representation? This would accomplish "government by popular
majority" and guarantee the representation of minority parties, but it would also demolish our federal system of
government. If there are reasons to maintain State representation in the Senate and House as they exist today,
then surely these same reasons apply to the choice of president. Why, then, apply a sentimental attachment to
popular majorities only to the Electoral College? The fact is, they argue, that the original design of our federal
system of government was thoroughly and wisely debated by the Founding Fathers. State viewpoints, they
decided, are more important than political minority viewpoints. And the collective opinion of the individual
State populations is more important than the opinion of the national population taken as a whole. Nor should we
tamper with the careful balance of power between the national and State governments which the Founding
Fathers intended and which is reflected in the Electoral College. To do so would fundamentally alter the nature
of our government and might well bring about consequences that even the reformers would come to regret.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
88
NOVEMBER 2011
ELECTORAL COLLEGE SUPERIOR: FINALITY
1.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE PRODUCES NECESSARY, SWIFT FINALITY TO ELECTION OUTCOMES
Brendan Loy, attorney, "Count Every Vote -- All 538 of Them: A Pragmatic Defense of the Electoral College,"
3-30-08, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1014431, accessed 10-6-11.
These calendar-based procedural safeguards are crucial, but even they might not be enough to prevent disputed
elections from breaking the system if not for another underappreciated aspect of the Electoral College system:
the "quarantining" of post-election disputes within individual states, thanks to the unit rule. As noted in the
introduction of this paper, the only states that "matter" for Electoral College purposes are the ones where the
margin is close, and then only when the close states have enough electoral votes to potentially swing the national
election. For purposes of finality and timeliness, this is vastly preferable to a system that would distribute
controversy in a close election across the nation as a whole. Under the Electoral College, even if the vote is very
close nationally, the losing candidate derives no benefit from challenging the tallies in the great majority of
states. This reduces the number of potential grounds for challenging a close election, as well as the number of
jurisdictions in which those challenges might be filed, which in turn increases the likelihood of a "swift, sure"
resolution to any disputes.
2.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE DOES WELL TO AVOID DISPUTED OUTCOMES
Brendan Loy, attorney, "Count Every Vote -- All 538 of Them: A Pragmatic Defense of the Electoral College,"
3-30-08, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1014431, accessed 10-6-11.
Of course, those 538 ballots cannot be considered in isolation. They are, after all, the work of "automata" who
simply echo the popular vote in their respective states. More precisely, although it is easy to count 538 votes, the
identity of the 538 voters cannot be determined without counting thousands or even millions of votes in each
state. Still, the Electoral College has several safeguards that keep disputes to a minimum and confine them
within a rigid timeline. One such safeguard is the mid-December meeting of the electors -- the true "election
day" on which the president and vice president are actually elected, 41 days after the public votes. A second,
closely related safeguard is the "safe harbor" window, six days before the electors meet, for resolving disputes
over which electors were chosen (i.e., which presidential candidate won the state's popular vote): If any State
shall have provided, by laws enacted prior to the day fixed for the appointment of the electors, for its final
determination of any controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors of such
State, by judicial or other methods or procedures, and such determination shall have been made at least six days
before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors, such determination made pursuant to such law so existing
on said day, and made at least six days prior to said time of meeting of the electors, shall be conclusive, and shall
govern in the counting of the electoral votes as provided in the Constitution, and as hereinafter regulated, so far
as the ascertainment of the electors appointed by such State is concerned. The meaning of this provision is
subject to considerable dispute. The majority in Bush v. Gore concluded that the "safe harbor" date was
essentially a final deadline for resolving disputes, while the dissents argued otherwise. Either way, it is clear that
these dual deadlines -- the "safe harbor" date 35 days after the public votes, and the electors' meeting 41 days
after the public votes -- provide a strong impetus to resolve intrastate vote-counting disputes in a timely fashion,
or else give up on challenges if they cannot be so resolved. For example, in 1960, contrary to the widely held
belief that Richard Nixon magnanimously refused to mount any electoral challenges "for the good of the
country," the national Republican Party dropped its legal challenges in Illinois only after December 19, when the
Electoral College made John F. Kennedy's victory official.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
89
NOVEMBER 2011
ELECTORAL COLLEGE SUPERIOR: FOUNDING FATHERS
-
FOUNDING FATHERS STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE SYSTEM
Tara Ross, attorney, "The Electoral College: Enlightened Democracy," LEGAL MEMORANDUM n. 15,
Heritage Foundation, 11-1-04,
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2004/11/The-Electoral-College-Enlightened-Democracy, accessed
10-13-11.
The United States is quickly approaching its first presidential election since the eventful election of 2000. The
story of that election is still fresh in our memory. George W. Bush won the presidency, but only after weeks of
controversy in Florida. His win made him the first President in more than 100 years to attain the White House
despite a popular vote loss, and it led to renewed calls for abolition of America's unique presidential election
system, colloquially referred to as the Electoral College. Some academics have criticized the Electoral College
for years. It has been called an "anachronism" that "thwarts" democratic principles, "constitutional stupidity,"or
even a "dangerous game" with "many built-in pitfalls" that are "bound to destroy us." In 1967, the American Bar
Association blasted the system, calling it "archaic, undemocratic, complex, ambiguous, indirect, and dangerous."
The negative views of today's academics are starkly at odds with the universal admiration for the system at the
time it was created. Alexander Hamilton, for instance, publicly deemed the Electoral College "excellent. Other
delegates at the Constitutional Convention agreed with him: They viewed the Electoral College as one of the
new Constitution's great achievements. Today's unenthusiastic views would almost certainly surprise these early
patriots.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
90
NOVEMBER 2011
ELECTORAL COLLEGE SUPERIOR: FRAGMENTATION/RUNOFFS
1.
DIRECT ELECTION WILL END THE CHANCE OF 'MAJORITY' ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT
Tara Ross, attorney, "The Electoral College: Enlightened Democracy," LEGAL MEMORANDUM n. 15,
Heritage Foundation, 11-1-04,
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2004/11/The-Electoral-College-Enlightened-Democracy, accessed
10-13-11.
Direct popular election proponents sound plausible when they argue for election of the President by a "majority"
of the people. In reality, however, a President elected by the majority of citizens will rarely be achievable. A
majority, after all, will never agree on an ideal candidate. Given an open choice, individuals would fracture their
votes across many candidates. Runoffs would proliferate, and Presidents would essentially be elected by the
initial 20 or 25 percent of voters who got them into the runoff. Presidents would always know that at least 75 to
80 percent of the people originally voted for someone else. Given the general inability to obtain majority
consensus, the Electoral College provides the country with the next best alternative. Electing Presidents by
states' votes, rather than individuals' votes, creates a method of electing a President who is a good compromise
candidate for the majority of Americans. The Electoral College requires moderation, compromise, and coalition
building from any candidate before he can be successful. Direct elections and a system of runoffs discourage
such behavior.
2.
DIRECT ELECTION WOULD DESTABILIZE THE ELECTION SYSTEM -- ENCOURAGE PARTY
FRAGMENTATION
William C. Kimberling, Deputy Director, FEC Office of Election Administration, THE ELECTORAL
COLLEGE, 5-92, http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf, accessed 10-4-11.
A direct popular election of the president would likely have the opposite effect. For in a direct popular election,
there would be every incentive for a multitude of minor parties to form in an attempt to prevent whatever
popular majority might be necessary to elect a president. The surviving candidates would thus be drawn to the
regionalist or extremist views represented by these parties in hopes of winning the run-off election. The result of
a direct popular election for president, then, would likely be a frayed and unstable political system characterized
by a multitude of political parties and by more radical changes in policies from one administration to the next.
The Electoral College system, in contrast, encourages political parties to coalesce divergent interests into two
sets of coherent alternatives. Such an organization of social conflict and political debate contributes to the
political stability of the nation.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
91
NOVEMBER 2011
ELECTORAL COLLEGE SUPERIOR: FRAUD/MANIPULATION CONCERNS
1.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE HELPS INSULATE PARTICULAR INSTANCES OF FRAUD, KEEPS THEM
FROM TAINTING THE WHOLE ELECTION
Howard Phillips, President, Conservative Caucus Foundation, "Introduction," THE IMPORTANCE OF THE
ELECTORAL COLLEGE, 2004, p.viii.
Instead of a single "national" election, there is a separate election in each of the States which constitute the
Republic. In this manner, the President is not the creature of Congress, but an independent force, albeit with
actual elements of accountability to the Congress as well as to the States. Moreover, through the Electoral
College process, the President is also accountable to "We, the People" as citizens of each particular State.
Because of the Electoral College system, if fraud is detected in a single State's election, it docs not de-legitimate
or poison the total result. Similarly, the role of the States in choosing the President assures that those who seek
the office of chief magistrate will, to a greater degree than would otherwise be the case, pay heed to the varying
interests and concerns of the several States.
2.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE DECREASES INCIDENCE OF FRAUD AND ERROR
Tara Ross, attorney, "The Electoral College: Enlightened Democracy," LEGAL MEMORANDUM n. 15,
Heritage Foundation, 11-1-04,
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2004/11/The-Electoral-College-Enlightened-Democracy, accessed
10-13-11.
The Electoral College provides yet another benefit: It reduces the incidence of fraud and error. Obviously, no
system can completely eliminate the element of human error. Neither can any system eradicate the tendency of
some dishonest individuals to cheat. An election system can, however, minimize the extent to which these
factors affect elections. The Electoral College defends against fraudulent behavior and human error in two ways:
First, the system makes it difficult to predict where stolen votes will make a difference. Second, to the degree
that fraud and errors do occur, the Electoral College makes it possible to isolate the problem to one state or a
handful of states. The country is given a clear set of problems to resolve one way or another before moving on to
a definitive election outcome -- much as it knew in 2000 that the election would be certain once Florida's
disputes were resolved. Today, both the electoral and the popular votes must be extremely close before voting
disputes and recounts are threatened. By contrast, a direct popular election would require only a close popular
vote before these scenarios became possible. National recounts and legal challenges would be a constant
possibility, particularly because of the increasing likelihood of multiple candidacies, lower individual vote totals,
and smaller margins among candidates. Moreover, a direct popular vote system would increase, rather than
decrease, the incentive for fraud. Any stolen vote would have at least some effect, regardless of its location.
Party officials and supporters in states in which that party clearly dominates have the greatest ability to rig
election rules and get away with cheating on behalf of their party's candidate. Under the Electoral College
system, however, they have the least incentive or need to cheat for their presidential candidate. Using a direct
election system, dishonest officials in one-party states have both the ability and incentive to cheat, creating
potential resentment, suspicion, and hatred from other states and from the citizens of their own state. The
Electoral College minimizes the impact of fraud, isolating it to the one or two states where the vote was close,
disputed, and relevant to the Electoral College balance.
3.
DIRECT ELECTION WOULD ENCOURAGE STATES TO GAME VOTING CRITERIA
Ronald D. Rotunda, "How the Electoral College Works -- And Why It Works Well," Cato Institute, 11-13-2K,
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4450, accessed 10-11-11.
A purely popular vote would encourage some states (particularly one-party states) to change their voting
requirements to increase that state's influence nationwide. For example, a state could drop the voting age to 17 or
16, because more people voting would allow that state affect the national vote, not just the electoral vote. Indeed,
if a simple majority governed, both the candidates and the voters would have acted differently. Gov. Bush would
have spent more time in Texas, racking up huge majorities, because an extra vote in Texas would counterbalance
a Gore vote in California.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
92
NOVEMBER 2011
ELECTORAL COLLEGE SUPERIOR: FRAUD/MANIPULATION CONCERNS cont'd
4.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE ISOLATES RECOUNT/FRAUD PROBLEMS TO INDIVIDUAL STATES
Brendan Loy, attorney, "Count Every Vote -- All 538 of Them: A Pragmatic Defense of the Electoral College,"
3-30-08, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1014431, accessed 10-6-11.
In all three of these elections, and every other close vote in American history, the Electoral College isolated any
controversies to individual states. But under an interstate compact or direct-election plan, such an eventuality
would create controversy and legal wrangling on an almost unimaginable scale. Every alleged anomaly,
everywhere, would become the subject of potential legal action, because it would no longer matter whether a
specific state was itself close. And the incentive to look for anomalies would be extremely high: as Posner wrote
in reference to the 2000 race, "There is little doubt that if Bush's people nosed around heavily Democratic
precincts throughout the nation they would come up with colorable arguments about voter and tabulation error
that might have determined the election [if the president were elected by popular vote]."
5.
NATIONAL VOTE SYSTEM ENCOURAGES LOOKING FOR 'FRAUD' AND 'GAMING' IN EVERY
POLLING PLACE
Brendan Loy, attorney, "Count Every Vote -- All 538 of Them: A Pragmatic Defense of the Electoral College,"
3-30-08, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1014431, accessed 10-6-11.
It is worth recalling that Florida was hardly the only state where voting and vote counting anomalies may have
occurred in 2000. There were alleged anomalies in many other states, but they were generally not litigated
because those states were won in landslides, so the possible discrepancies did not matter to the candidates. In a
national popular-vote system, by contrast, the concept of "winning" a state would be meaningless; any close
presidential election would be a nationwide free-for-all. Every state and county courthouse in the country would
become the front line in a pitched battle over a razor-close vote.
6.
DIRECT ELECTION WOULD INCREASE THE RISKS OF FRAUD
Judith Best, THE CASE AGAINST DIRECT ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT: A DEFENSE OF THE
ELECTORAL COLLEGE, 1975, p.209.
The remaining charges in the indictment are either insignificant or not exclusive to the existing system. The
faithless-elector problem is not only miniscule, but it might be mitigated if the political parties exercised greater
care and responsibility in selecting their nominees for the office of elector. Fraud is a problem for all electoral
systems and is particularly threatening in a close election. There is reason to believe that the direct-election
method would increase rather than reduce the dangers of fraud, because it would increase the number of actually
close elections. Under the direct-election contingency provisions, fraud might occur in two elections, the general
election and the runoff.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
93
NOVEMBER 2011
ELECTORAL COLLEGE SUPERIOR: LARGE STATE CONSOLIDATION
1.
DIRECT ELECTION WOULD FOCUS CAMPAIGNING IN ONLY THE BIG CITIES
John Ryder, "Popular Presidential Vote Subverts the Constitution," WASHINGTONTIMES, 6-2-11,
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/2/ryder-popular-presidential-vote-subverts-constitut/, accessed
10-13-11.
A popular vote, in contrast, does not require the candidate to have broad appeal. It would make it possible for a
candidate to win without any majority but merely a plurality of the popular vote. The compact would require the
states to determine the candidate with the "largest national popular vote" -- not a majority. Thus, in a
multicandidate race, the "largest national popular vote" could be obtained by a regional candidate with just 35
percent or 40 percent of the popular vote. Under such an arrangement, presidential candidates would have no
incentive to campaign anywhere except the major media markets in a few states. The country would, in essence,
cede our presidential elections to the largest metropolitan areas, whose concerns are different from those of other
areas of the country.
2.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE PROTECTS US FROM THE TYRANNY OF A FEW LARGE STATES
John Ryder, "Popular Presidential Vote Subverts the Constitution," WASHINGTONTIMES, 6-2-11,
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/2/ryder-popular-presidential-vote-subverts-constitut/, accessed
10-13-11.
Our system has proved remarkably stable for more than 200 years. Ours is the world's second-oldest written
Constitution, after Iceland's. That is remarkably long for a governmental structure. Only the Civil War mars our
record of political stability, but the breakdown in the system in 1861 did not occur because of the Electoral
College. The American Bar Association once called the Electoral College "archaic, undemocratic, complex,
ambiguous and dangerous." These adjectives describe virtues of our constitutional system, not faults. It is
archaic -- not obsolete -- and still serves us well. It is supposed to be undemocratic, to protect smaller states from
tyranny by a few large states. We are a republic, not a democracy.
3.
DIRECT ELECTION WOULD ENCOURAGE CAMPAIGNS TO FOCUS THEIR RESOURCES IN BIG,
DENSE STATES
John Samples, Director, Center for Representative Government, Cato Institute, "A Critique of the National
Popular Vote Plan for Electing the President," POLICY ANALYSIS n. 622, 10-13-08,
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-622.pdf, accessed 10-4-11.
Even if all votes are weighed equally in an election, the cost of attracting a marginal vote for president would
vary. For example, it would be less expensive per voter to attract votes in populous states because of the
structure of media markets. As noted earlier, there is a relationship between population size and competitiveness
in presidential elections. In that respect, the marginal effect of the NPV plan would be to draw candidates toward
large, competitive states. The cost of votes also depends on the efficiency of a campaign and party organization.
The least costly votes are thus likely to be found in large, competitive states where the organizations have
become efficient through competition and in large, non-competitive states where party organizations may have
unique advantages in "running up the score." In that way, the NPV plan might bring some candidate attention to
states that are now non-competitive and ignored. But running up the score in party strongholds may also increase
the regionalization of presidential politics. In general, because of the relative costs of attracting votes, the NPV
proposal seems likely at the margin to attract candidate attention to populous states. Many voters outside
low-cost media markets may be as ignored under NPV as they are under the status quo.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
94
NOVEMBER 2011
ELECTORAL COLLEGE SUPERIOR: LEGITIMACY
1.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE IS KEY TO LEGITIMIZING THE WINNER OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS
Joe Postell, "Will the Left Stop Complaining About the Electoral College?" THE FOUNDRY, Heritage
Foundation, 11-12-08,
http://blog.heritage.org/2008/11/12/will-the-left-finally-stop-complaining-about-the-electoral-college/, accessed
10-3-11.
President-elect Barack Obama's victory in the Electoral College was rather wide. It has been construed by many
as a decisive victory, and Obama is viewed by the overwhelming majority of Americans as the legitimate
winner. Yet his margin of victory in the popular vote was 53%-46%. He won the votes of a narrow majority
(roughly the same percentage of the vote, in fact, as Proposition 8 received in California). Viewed from this
perspective, one might say that Obama takes office in a precarious position, rather than having received a
mandate. The point is this: the Electoral College is essential to assuring the legitimacy of presidential elections.
Rather than receiving support from a very slim majority, or merely a plurality, the winner of the Electoral
College is typically viewed as the legitimate winner of the office. Bill Clinton won a mere 43% of the popular
vote in 1992. Similarly, John F. Kennedy won less than a majority of the vote in 1960. Yet most Americans
considered these presidents to be legitimate. For those who treasure America's success in ensuring the peaceful
transfer of political authority, based on the legitimacy of government by consent rather than force, this is no
small consideration. Although it's certain that the spurious attacks on the Electoral College will continue, let's
not overlook how helpful it has been in allowing us to avoid the disorder and violence that has plagued political
transition in other nations. Perhaps this is something even the left can appreciate.
2.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE ENSURES A NATIONAL CAMPAIGN -- INCREASES LEGITIMACY OF THE
EVENTUAL WINNERS
Lawrence W. Reed, Mackinac Center for Public Policy, "Keep the Electoral College," IDEAS ON LIBERTY, 301, http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=3353, accessed 10-3-11.
Moreover, the fact that a candidate must win a majority in the Electoral College means that he cannot focus all
his resources and attention on campaigning in only a few large states. He must fashion a truly national appeal, as
opposed to a divisive regional one. That helps assure that the winner will enjoy an added measure of support and
legitimacy that derives from a relatively broad base. Thankfully, the question of abolishing the Electoral College
is moot because the hurdles a constitutional amendment would have to jump to accomplish that end are simply
too high. Too many small states would block it, as they have successfully done on numerous previous occasions.
They understand that doing away with the Electoral College would shift the focus of presidential elections to a
handful of large, populous states.
3.
DIRECT ELECTION WOULD UNDERMINE THE LEGITIMIZING ROLE OF ELECTION OUTCOMES
Brendan Loy, attorney, "Count Every Vote -- All 538 of Them: A Pragmatic Defense of the Electoral College,"
3-30-08, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1014431, accessed 10-6-11.
Another lost safeguard is the 200 years of history and precedent that underlie the Electoral College system and
imbue it with legitimacy. No matter how well-drafted a constitutional amendment creating a wholly new system
might be, it is impossible to anticipate every conflict that could potentially arise. Thus the courts will inevitably
be drawn into adjudicating issues that have never been considered before, and while courts are routinely called
upon to do that in other areas of the law, there ought to be a strong presumption against "reinventing the wheel"
when it comes to the method of choosing the president of the United States, the most powerful official in our
government. The long history of the Electoral College creates public confidence that the system will be able to
successfully navigate close elections, and that same history guides the courts and Congress as they consider how
to follow procedures and resolve disputes. We know what the rules are, we know how they have historically
been interpreted, and we know they are not just going to change in mid-stream. Essentially starting from scratch
would create considerable uncertainty, and again, disrupt the certainty of an undisputed and timely winner.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
95
NOVEMBER 2011
ELECTORAL COLLEGE SUPERIOR: LEGITIMACY cont'd
4.
DIRECT VOTING LOWERS WIN PERCENTAGES, DECREASING LEGITIMACY OF THE WINNER
Thomas E. Cronin, "Forward," THE CHOICE OF THE PEOPLE? DEBATING THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE,
1996, p.xx-xxi.
The direct-vote method could easily produce a series of 41-percent presidents, thereby affecting the legitimacy
of the winner. Lincoln was the only president with a vote that small, but he wasn't on the ballot in several states.
In an era when confidence and trust in the national government have eroded, the direct vote would almost ensure
that we would have minority presidents -- persons who won with less than 50 percent of the vote -- most of the
time. We have had sixteen minority presidents, yet the present electoral college system is a two-stage process in
which the popular votes are converted into electoral votes. In every election this has the effect of magnifying the
vote margin of the winner, so much so that only once in more than a hundred years has a president received less
than 55 percent of the electoral college vote (Wilson received 52 percent).
5.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE SYSTEM IS GOOD AT PRODUCING CLEAR WINNERS
Judith Best, THE CASE AGAINST DIRECT ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT: A DEFENSE OF THE
ELECTORAL COLLEGE, 1975, p.210.
First, an electoral system should produce a definite, accepted winner and avoid prolonged contests and disputes
that create uncertainty and public turmoil. Our present electoral system passes this test, partly because of the
electoral rules and partly because of customs. It has proven itself in time and practice. There have been no
contingency elections since the adoption of the unit rule. Only one election has been seriously disputed because
of fraud. On the other hand the direct election could provoke contests and disputes, and it would necessitate
national voter lists and federal administration of elections. Contrary to the proponents' suggestion, the 40-percent
runoff rule could make frequent resort to a contingency election necessary. Once the unit rule, with its bias in
favor of the two major? party candidates, is abolished, the 40-percent runoff rule could serve as an open
invitation to multiple candidacies and thereby facilitate a contingency-election strategy. If the unit rule were
abandoned, concern about fraud would not be limited to key states but, rather, could extend to the whole nation,
compounding delay and uncertainty.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
96
NOVEMBER 2011
ELECTORAL COLLEGE SUPERIOR: MANDATE
1.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE TYPICALLY CONFIRMS THE WINNER OF THE POPULAR VOTE, CREATES
A GREATER PRESIDENTIAL MANDATE
Brendan Loy, attorney, "Count Every Vote -- All 538 of Them: A Pragmatic Defense of the Electoral College,"
3-30-08, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1014431, accessed 10-6-11.
As a rule, the electoral vote has not only reached the same conclusion as the national popular vote, it has actually
magnified the winner's margin of victory, arguably creating a greater apparent "mandate" for the newly elected
president. This has occurred in every election since 1828 except the three "inversion" elections: 1876, 1888 and
2000. Moreover, on 14 different occasions, the electoral vote has transformed a plurality into a majority. Of
special note are the elections of 1880 and 1960, both of which had popular-vote margins that would have been
easily narrow enough to require a nationwide recount in a rational direct-election system. In 1880, the electors
not only chose the candidate whom direct-election purists would consider the "right winner," narrow
popular-vote winner Republican James Garfield, they did so without controversy despite the closest popular vote
in American history, a difference of just 9,070 votes or 0.098 percent. None of the states won by Garfield were
closer than 1.4 percent, so there was essentially nothing for runner-up Winfield Hancock to challenge. Eighty
years later, in 1960, the Electoral College again chose the "right winner," Democrat John F. Kennedy, even
though his popular-vote margin over Richard Nixon was just 112,827 votes or 0.164 percent, easily within the
range where a recount would be necessary. Nixon would have needed at least two states to switch hands in order
to win the Electoral College, so disputes were isolated to large states won narrowly by Kennedy (specifically,
Illinois and Texas), and once the Electoral College had voted, national Republicans bowed to the inevitable and
dropped their challenges.
2.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE DOES A GOOD JOB OF PRODUCING STRONG PRESIDENCIES
Judith Best, THE CASE AGAINST DIRECT ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT: A DEFENSE OF THE
ELECTORAL COLLEGE, 1975, p.210-211.
Second, an electoral system should preserve the prestige, power, and potential for leadership of the office of the
President. The present system is unquestionably healthy on this score. Under its rules, the Presidency has
become the focal point of the government. It has grown and developed to a degree that would have astounded
the Founders. But there is reason to doubt that the power of the Presidency ought to be enhanced, particularly in
the current political climate, in which voices are being raised against "the imperial Presidency." Yet, if disputes
and con tests could be contained, the direct-election plan would extend and increase the Presidency's power and
potential for leadership. A plebiscitary Presidency as a symbol of the general will would strengthen the position
of the President in relation to Congress, which cannot claim to speak clearly for the general will but only for
concurrent majorities or pluralities. The direct-election plan is part of a trend toward centralization -- a trend,
James Burnham contends, whose "end is Caesar." 2. This trend may result in the weakening of the intermediary
institutions that have served the republic well. The intermediary institutions always appear to be incomplete,
distorted and obstructive expressions of the general will. Through them are expressed the interests of classes,
local regions, industries, churches, races, or other sub-sections of the people as a whole. Not only do the
intermediary institutions appear in this way partial. The appearance is not deceptive: it is a fact that they are
expressions of only parts or elements of the general will and interest. It is precisely through these intermediary
institutions that the otherwise formless, politically meaningless, abstract entity, "the people," is given structure,
and becomes articulate, organized, and operationally significant. 3. This pluralistic nation may be better served
by its system of concurrent majorities than by a system that would make the President the embodiment of the
general will, the plebiscitary leader who speaks for no special interest.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
97
NOVEMBER 2011
ELECTORAL COLLEGE SUPERIOR: MAJORITARIAN TYRANNY
1.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE IS CRITICAL TO PREVENT MAJORITARIAN TYRANNY
Rachel Alexander, attorney, "Don't Get Rid of the Electoral College," ENTER STAGE RIGHT, 10-10-11,
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1011/1011ec.htm, accessed 10-13-11.
The problem with choosing mass democracy over electing educated representatives to make most political
decisions can be summed up in the well-known expression, "Democracy is two wolves and one lamb voting on
what to have for dinner." The reason we have checks and balances is to avoid tyranny of the majority. Our
country has lasted long and excelled because we were not established as a mass democracy. The U.S. was
founded as a republican democracy -- a representative government. We elect leaders to make decisions for us
because not all of us have time to spend delving into political issues to fully understand them. James Madison in
Federalist No. 10 explained why the Constitution established electoral representation and not direct
representation, "by enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the representatives too little
acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests."
2.
ABOLISHING THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE THREATENS OUR RIGHTS, REMOVES KEY CHECKS ON
GOVERNMENT
James R. Edwards Jr., adjunct fellow, Hudson Institute, "Want a Real Constitutional Crisis? Scrap the Electoral
College," NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE, 2-20-02,
http://old.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-edwards022002.shtml, accessed 10-13-11.
A year after Bush v. Gore, the Senate has taken up legislation that would allow the federal government to
micromanage states' electoral mechanics. As bad as this bill is, it falls short of what some people suggested last
year: doing away with the electoral college altogether. If you want a real constitutional crisis, scrap the electoral
college and go to the direct election of presidents. Remember, the Founding Fathers deliberated over many of the
same contingencies we're revisiting. They had escaped subservience to a monarch; had experience with colonial,
then state governments with their own constitutions; and sought to remedy the flaws of the Articles of
Confederation. The Founders crafted a union whose constituent parts are sovereign states. Federalist 1 notes that
the Constitution is "comprehending in its consequences nothing less than the existence of the UNION, the safety
and welfare of the parts of which it is composed." Though some dismiss states' rights and their role in the federal
system, the fact remains that states counterbalance the federal government. Under the federal system the
Founders fashioned, states have a voice as states so that they can check and balance the national government.
The Constitution constructs a central government which is strong enough, but limited in scope. Civil government
-- at all levels -- is limited so that it won't unduly encroach on individual rights. States intervene in order to
safeguard the individual rights of their citizens. States gained a voice in presidential selection as states because
"The State governments may be regarded as constituent and essential parts of the federal government; whilst the
latter is nowise essential to the operation or organization of the former" (Federalist 45). The constitutional
counterbalance would be radically upset without the electoral college, thus leaving our rights less guarded. Some
will argue that we've steadily marched toward direct democracy and away from republican design. But that's all
the more reason to preserve the remaining components of the federated system. As a result of the destruction of
the states' checks and balances, the federal government has steadily encroached on state jurisdiction -- with
impunity.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
98
NOVEMBER 2011
ELECTORAL COLLEGE SUPERIOR: MAJORITARIAN TYRANNY cont'd
3.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE IS IMPORTANT TO OUR SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND BALANCES
John Ryder, "Popular Presidential Vote Subverts the Constitution," WASHINGTONTIMES, 6-2-11,
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/2/ryder-popular-presidential-vote-subverts-constitut/, accessed
10-13-11.
The Electoral College is part of an elaborate mechanism designed by the Founders to create interdependent
centers of power, each balancing the excesses of the others. The Constitution balances the competing elements
of our Republic: The membership of the House of Representatives is based on population. The Senate is based
on equal representation by state. This design balances the interests of large and small states. The Electoral
College mirrors this arrangement by giving each state electoral votes equal to its membership in the House plus
its two Senators. Thus, California gets 55 electoral votes because of its large population, but no state, even
Delaware, has fewer than three electoral votes. It reflects the Founders' compromise between large states and
small states and between electing the president by Congress and electing the president directly by the people.
Bypassing the Electoral College through the proposed compact undermines that balance by effectually erasing
states' boundaries along with those states' sovereignty. On a practical level, the Constitution requires a successful
candidate to assemble a winning coalition across a broad geographic spectrum, embracing both large and small
states, rather than a narrow concentration of votes.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
99
NOVEMBER 2011
ELECTORAL COLLEGE SUPERIOR: MINORITY VOTERS (GENERAL)
1.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE HELPS PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF MINORITY VOTERS
Eric Fingerhut, "Abolishing the Electoral College: Could It Really Be Bad for Jews," JWEEKLY, 12-1-2K,
http://www.jweekly.com/includes/print/14609/article/abolishing-the-electoral-college-could-it-really-be-bad-forjews/, accessed 10-13-11.
Democratic political consultant and pollster Mark Mellman agreed. "There is no question" the format of the
Electoral College "was designed to enhance the power of minorities," he said, whether small states or small
ethnic groups. Professor Marshall Breger of Catholic University of America's Columbus School of Law said in
populous states like New York or New Jersey, where Jews make up more than 10 percent of the electorate, the
Jewish vote can "leverage the vote of the entire state." But in a pure popular vote election, where Jews would be
3 to 4 percent of the overall electorate, the Jewish vote would be "swamped" by the rest of the country and have
less importance, Breger said. The Electoral College "is an enormous benefit to minorities like Jews," agreed
Norman Ornstein, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. He noted that states such as
Pennsylvania, Florida and New Jersey were "close enough that a small but highly active group of people" -- like
Jews -- could have a significant effect on the election.
2.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT MINORITY POLITICAL INTERESTS
Tara Ross, Testimony before the Nevada Senate committee on Legislative Operations and Elections, 5-7-09,
http://www.saveourstates.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Written-Testimony_Nevada.pdf, accessed 10-6-11.
Eliminating the Electoral College would do serious harm to a country as diverse as our own. The system
provides our country with many great benefits that tend to remain unnoticed and thus unappreciated by most
Americans. The history of the Electoral College must be understood if its benefits are to be appreciated. The
delegates to the Constitutional Constitution had to reconcile two seemingly irreconcilable goals: They wanted
the people to govern themselves, but they also wanted to ensure that minority interests could not be completely
ignored by the majority. A pure democracy would not accomplish their objective. In a pure democracy, 51
percent of the people rule the other 49 percent all the time, without exception. If we lived in a pure democracy,
imagine what could happen in the wake of an event like 9/11. A bare majority could enact any law it desired,
even if that law was tyrannical, racist, or penalized some people for their religious beliefs. The Founders decided
not to create a pure democracy. Instead, they created a Constitution that tempered its democratic aspects with
republican and federalist characteristics. Constitutional safeguards such as the Senate (with its one state, one
vote representation), the presidential veto, supermajority requirements to amend the Constitution, and the
Electoral College allow the majority to rule, but only while they act reasonably. Minority political interests,
particularly the small states, are protected.
3.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE NECESSARY TO PROTECT MINORITY RIGHTS, CHECK MAJORITARIAN
DICTATORSHIPS
Ronald D. Rotunda, "How the Electoral College Works -- And Why It Works Well," Cato Institute, 11-13-2K,
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4450, accessed 10-11-11.
The Framers of our Constitution invented a system that would establish a democracy while protecting minority
rights. They created the Electoral College to protect the residents of the smaller states, and they rejected
government by simple majority because plebiscites historically have been the tool of dictatorships, not
democracy. To win the presidency, the candidate must receive a majority of the electoral votes. To determine
how many electoral votes a state has, just take the number of each state's U.S. Representatives and add two
(which represents the number of Senators for each state). Even the residents of the smallest states (or the District
of Columbia) have a minimum of three electoral votes.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
100
NOVEMBER 2011
ELECTORAL COLLEGE SUPERIOR: MINORITY VOTERS (GENERAL) cont'd
4.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE PROTECTS INTERESTS OF RACIAL MINORITIES
Ronald D. Rotunda, "How the Electoral College Works -- And Why It Works Well," Cato Institute, 11-13-2K,
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4450, accessed 10-11-11.
The Electoral College, in practice, gives a little more electoral power to racial minorities, such as blacks and
Hispanics, and thus is important in helping to achieve racial justice. Because these minorities tend to live in the
large cities of the bigger states, their votes are important in tilting all the electoral votes of their state, thus
encouraging candidates of both parties to appeal for their votes.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
101
NOVEMBER 2011
ELECTORAL COLLEGE SUPERIOR: MINORITY VOTERS (JEWISH)
1.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE HELPS JEWISH VOTERS -- KEEPS A LID ON FRINGE/EXTREMIST
CANDIDATES
Eric Fingerhut, "Abolishing the Electoral College: Could It Really Be Bad for Jews," JWEEKLY, 12-1-2K,
http://www.jweekly.com/includes/print/14609/article/abolishing-the-electoral-college-could-it-really-be-bad-forjews/, accessed 10-13-11.
But would the Jewish community -- which is considered to have an impact on American politics that goes well
beyond its small population -- lose some of its influence if the presidential election format were changed? Jewish
political activists and legal experts generally say that it would, and that the Electoral College gives minorities
more power than they would have in a direct popular election. Getting rid of the Electoral College would be
"harmful to Jews," said Phil Baum, executive director of the American Jewish Congress. Baum's organization
has testified in front of Congress three times in favor of the Electoral College -- 1969, 1979 and 1992. One
reason Baum cites is that the college holds down the number of third-party candidates who may have extreme or
"fringe" platforms. Any candidate who does not have a message broad enough to appeal to large sections of the
country has little chance of success in the Electoral College, but in a direct popular election, small parties could
wield a great deal of influence. "With the two-party system, there is a smoothing out of extreme views," Baum
said.
2.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE HELPS MINORITY GROUPS LIKE JEWISH VOTERS -- WOULD NOT BE
SIGNIFICANT IN A GENERAL ELECTION
Eric Fingerhut, "Abolishing the Electoral College: Could It Really Be Bad for Jews," JWEEKLY, 12-1-2K,
http://www.jweekly.com/includes/print/14609/article/abolishing-the-electoral-college-could-it-really-be-bad-forjews/, accessed 10-13-11.
But the primary reason Baum cites is demographics -- as does Hyman Bookbinder, Washington representative
emeritus of the American Jewish Committee. "With 3 percent of the vote, there is no need for candidates to pay
attention to Jewish votes [in a direct popular election]," Bookbinder said. "But Jews have a concentration in
certain states," many of them large, and can influence the outcome in those areas. While Bookbinder said he is
"very sympathetic" to the "pro-democratic" argument that the majority should prevail, he said that "in terms of
narrower Jewish interests, I am substantially in favor of the Electoral College."
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
102
NOVEMBER 2011
ELECTORAL COLLEGE SUPERIOR: MULTIWARRANT/GENERAL
1.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE BEST BALANCES FEDERALISM, DEMOCRACY, AND REPUBLICANISM
Tara Ross, attorney, "The Electoral College: Enlightened Democracy," LEGAL MEMORANDUM n. 15,
Heritage Foundation, 11-1-04,
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2004/11/The-Electoral-College-Enlightened-Democracy, accessed
10-13-11.
The delegates, then, faced a dilemma. Their fierce opposition to simple democracy ran headlong into their
determination to allow the people to govern themselves -- and they knew that voters in small states would need
to be free to govern themselves, just as would citizens in large states. The Founders reconciled these seemingly
conflicting needs by creating a republican government, organized on federalist principles, in which minorities
would be given many opportunities to make themselves heard. The Electoral College was considered to fit
perfectly within this republican, federalist government that had been created. The system would allow majorities
to rule, but only while they were reasonable, broad-based, and not tyrannical. The election process was seen as a
clever solution to the seemingly unsolvable problem facing the Convention -- finding a fair method of selecting
the Executive for a nation composed of both large and small states that have ceded some, but not all, of their
sovereignty to a central government. "`[T]he genius of the present [Electoral College] system,'" a 1970 Senate
report concluded, "`is the genius of a popular democracy organized on the federal principle.'"
2.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE DOES A BETTER JOB OF FULFILLING THE PURPOSE OF A PRESIDENTIAL
ELECTION THAN DO THE ALTERNATIVES
Brendan Loy, attorney, "Count Every Vote -- All 538 of Them: A Pragmatic Defense of the Electoral College,"
3-30-08, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1014431, accessed 10-6-11.
In the first section of this paper, I will ask the question: "What is the purpose of a presidential election?" I will
argue that presidential elections have two main purposes: picking the "right" winner, and doing so in a timely
and relatively undisputed fashion. I will then proceed to analyze, in the second section, how well the current
system fulfills these purposes; in the third section, how well the interstate compact plan would fulfill these
purposes; and in the fourth section, how well a direct popular-vote election would fulfill these purposes. My
conclusion is that the current system does a far better job of consistently fulfilling both purposes than would
either alternative.
3.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE IS GOOD -- FEDERALISM, MANDATES COMPROMISE, STABILIZES
ELECTION SYSTEM
Tara Ross, Testimony before the Nevada Senate committee on Legislative Operations and Elections, 5-7-09,
http://www.saveourstates.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Written-Testimony_Nevada.pdf, accessed 10-6-11.
The Electoral College provides many benefits that still serve Americans: ? The Benefits of Federalism.
Presidential candidates must build national coalitions of voters. Historically speaking, the candidate who builds
the broadest coalition will win. Thus, presidents are good representatives for all Americans; they do not merely
represent one region, state, or special interest group. ? Moderation and Compromise. The Electoral College
encourages Americans to work together, across state lines. A direct election system, by contrast, would result in
multi-party presidential races, a fractured electorate, increasingly extremist third-party candidates, and constant
recounts. ? Stability and Certainty in Elections. The Electoral College typically produces quick and undisputed
outcomes. Any problems are isolated to one or a handful of states. Fraud is minimized because it is hard to
predict where stolen votes will matter.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
103
NOVEMBER 2011
ELECTORAL COLLEGE SUPERIOR: MULTIWARRANT/GENERAL cont'd
4.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE SYSTEM IS EFFECTIVE DESPITE ITS PROBLEMS -- NO NEED TO ABANDON
IT
Judith Best, THE CASE AGAINST DIRECT ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT: A DEFENSE OF THE
ELECTORAL COLLEGE, 1975, p.218.
The electoral-count system has been, on the whole, a success. It has never failed to fill the office of President. In
every election since the universal adoption of the unit rule, it has given us a single election. It has provided a
constitutionally elected and constitutionally recognized President, even on the verge of civil war. It has given the
victory to the winner of the popular plurality in every case but one, despite a series of strong third-party threats,
particularly in this century. It has nurtured a moderate two-party system. Under its rules, the Presidency has
grown in both power and prestige. Judged in terms of its practical effects, our electoral system has a sound heart.
Like all living things, it has imperfections and defects, but it functions; indeed, it thrives. Those who focus on its
blemishes, real or imagined, advocate major surgery in the pursuit of abstract perfection, preferring logical
consistency to viability. Major surgery is not indicated if we prefer life to logic.
5.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE INCREASES THE STABILITY OF OUR ELECTION SYSTEM
Tara Ross, Testimony before the Nevada Senate committee on Legislative Operations and Elections, 5-7-09,
http://www.saveourstates.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Written-Testimony_Nevada.pdf, accessed 10-6-11.
The Electoral College encourages stability and certainty in our political system. Events such as those that
occurred in 2000 are rare. The Electoral College typically produces quick and undisputed election outcomes for
two reasons: First, the system (in combination with the winner-take-all rule) tends to magnify the margin of
victory, giving the victor a certain and demonstrable election outcome. Such certainty couldn't be provided by a
direct popular election. Popular votes are often close, and these close votes would result in constant litigation
and recounts. Second, the system controls the impact of fraud and error. In part, this is because it is difficult to
predict where stolen votes will make a difference to the national outcome. But if one person can identify a
problematic state (think Ohio in 2004), then, in all likelihood, everyone knows and that area is closely watched.
It becomes harder to steal votes. To the degree that fraud and errors do occur, the Electoral College makes it
possible to isolate the problem to one or a handful of states. The country is given a clear set of problems to
resolve one way or another before moving on to a definitive election outcome.
6.
ELIMINATING THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE WOULD PRODUCE A HOST OF PROBLEMS
Thomas E. Cronin, "Forward," THE CHOICE OF THE PEOPLE? DEBATING THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE,
1996, p.xv-xvi.
Supporters of the electoral college argue that eliminating this fixture would: * weaken the party system and
encourage splinter parties, triggering numerous contingency elections * undermine the federal system * lead to
interminable recounts and challenges and encourage electoral fraud " necessitate national control of every aspect
of the electoral process * give undue weight to numbers, thereby reducing the influence of minorities and of the
small states * encourage candidates for president who represent narrow geographical, ideological, and ethnic
bases of support * encourage simplistic media-oriented campaigns and bring about drastic changes in the
strategy and tactics used in campaigns for the presidency Others point out that the elections in 1824 and 1876. in
which the popular-vote losers were elected president, had little to do with the electoral college. The present
system did not exist in 1824; there was essentially one party and no party convention system that controlled
nominations, no popular vote in six states, and no unit electoral vote in six others. Moreover, it was the House of
Representatives, not the electoral college, that put in Adams. In 1876, Tilden had a majority in the electoral
college, and a rigged electoral commission put in Hayes. Hence, there was only one occasion in over two
hundred years, 1888, when the electoral college system denied the popular-vote winner the presidency. Is that
reason enough to justify taking a gamble on the direct-vote method?
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
104
NOVEMBER 2011
ELECTORAL COLLEGE SUPERIOR: NATIONAL UNITY
1.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE IS IMPORTANT IN BOLSTERING NATIONAL COHESIVENESS
William C. Kimberling, Deputy Director, FEC Office of Election Administration, THE ELECTORAL
COLLEGE, 5-92, http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf, accessed 10-4-11.
Proponents of the Electoral College system normally defend it on the philosophical grounds that it: n contributes
to the cohesiveness of the country by requiring a distribution of popular support to be elected president n
enhances the status of minority interests, n contributes to the political stability of the nation by encouraging a
two-party system, and n maintains a federal system of government and representation. Recognizing the strong
regional interests and loyalties which have played so great a role in American history, proponents argue that the
Electoral College system contributes to the cohesiveness of the country by requiring a distribution of popular
support to be elected president. Without such a mechanism, they point out, presidents would be selected either
through the domination of one populous region over the others or through the domination of large metropolitan
areas over the rural ones. Indeed, it is principally because of the Electoral College that presidential nominees are
inclined to select vice presidential running mates from a region other than their own. For as things stand now, no
one region contains the absolute majority (270) of electoral votes required to elect a president. Thus, there is an
incentive for presidential candidates to pull together coalitions of States and regions rather than to exacerbate
regional differences. Such a unifying mechanism seems especially prudent in view of the severe regional
problems that have typically plagued geographically large nations such as China, India, the Soviet Union, and
even, in its time, the Roman Empire.
2.
REGIONALIZATION OF POLITICS RISKS ANOTHER CIVIL WAR
Judith Best, Professor, Political Science, SUNY-Courtland, "Electoral College: The Debate Continues,"
NATIONAL ARCHIVES EXPERIENCE, 5-21-08,
http://www.archives.gov/nae/news/featured-programs/electoral-college/080521ElectoralCollegePanel.pdf,
accessed 10-13-11.
The second thing, a system must support the separation of powers by producing a president who can govern
because he has developed broad, cross-sectional support. Because no popular votes can be added across state
lines the successful strategy is to win pluralities in many, many states, and so this makes the distribution of the
popular vote as important as the number of the popular vote. So a president who wins the office by running up
huge margins of, say, 80% to 20% -- let's just say -- in the Eastern and Western Seaboards and then loses, is
soundly defeated in the middle of the country is not a president who can govern. In fact, he could face a civil
war.
3.
NEED TO DEVELOP A NATIONAL BASE ENCOURAGES MODERATION AMONGST CANDIDATES
Tara Ross, attorney, "The Electoral College: Enlightened Democracy," LEGAL MEMORANDUM n. 15,
Heritage Foundation, 11-1-04,
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2004/11/The-Electoral-College-Enlightened-Democracy, accessed
10-13-11.
Moderation and Compromise . Presidential candidates must build a national base among the states before they
can be elected. They cannot target any one interest group or regional minority. Instead, they must achieve a
consensus among enough groups, spread out over many states, to create a broad-based following among the
voters. Any other course of action will prevent a candidate from gaining the strong base needed to win the
election. The necessity of building such a national base has led to moderation and a strong two-party system in
American politics.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
105
NOVEMBER 2011
ELECTORAL COLLEGE SUPERIOR: NATIONAL UNITY cont'd
4.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE ENCOURAGES CANDIDATE MODERATION
Tara Ross, attorney, "The Electoral College: Enlightened Democracy," LEGAL MEMORANDUM n. 15,
Heritage Foundation, 11-1-04,
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2004/11/The-Electoral-College-Enlightened-Democracy, accessed
10-13-11.
Some see this trend toward moderation and a two-party system as a liability. They argue that certain points of
view on the far left or far right do not have representation. Some voters do identify with a third party more than
they identify with one of the two major parties. Democratic theories try to satisfy the choices of all voters, but
not to the point of destabilizing democratic majorities and democratic government itself. A system that favors a
stable two-party system, but allows minority parties to vie for control, has a definite benefit over a system that
favors many minority parties: Hand in hand with the Electoral College, it tends to prevent the rise to power of
extremist groups and radical minorities. Instead, American public policy tends to remain in the middle -- not too
far left, not too far right.
5.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE FORCES CANDIDATES TO HAVE NATIONAL APPEAL -- CHECKS AGAINST
REGIONAL CANDIDATES
Ronald D. Rotunda, "How the Electoral College Works -- And Why It Works Well," Cato Institute, 11-13-2K,
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4450, accessed 10-11-11.
The Electoral College system prevents candidates with only regional appeal from winning. Statistically, having
to prevail in a number of sub-elections produces a better result for the country. For the same reason we count the
number of games won in the World Series (rather than the total number of runs, which would be heavily
influenced by one anomalous game). If team A wins the first game 11 runs to zero, and team B wins the next
four games one run to zero, we all know that team B has won the World Series. After all, if Bush won 100
percent of the popular vote in his home state of Texas, thereby prevailing in the nationwide popular vote, those
extra votes would not show he had more support nationwide, only that he is a candidate popular in one very
populous state. All eyes are on Florida. Whatever will happen in that state, one thing is plain: no judge can order
a new election. Our Constitution, which is unclear in many matters, is clear about that. Congress determines the
time for choosing the presidential electors, and that time is uniform throughout the United States. A new
election, for either all or part of Florida, would not be the same time as the rest of us voted, Nov. 7.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
106
NOVEMBER 2011
ELECTORAL COLLEGE SUPERIOR: NATIONAL UNITY cont'd
6.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE IS DESIGNED TO PROMOTE NATIONAL UNITY, CHECK AGAINST
REGIONALIST CANDIDATES
Julie Ann Ponzi, adjunct fellow, Ashbrook Center, "Respect Diversity: The Electoral Vote Is the Will of the
People," 11-2K, http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/oped/ponzi/00/electoral.html, accessed 10-3-11.
The men who wrote our Constitution had greater fears than voter stupidity -- something that ironically
distinguishes them from the Gore camp in Palm Beach. In fact, their fear was not so much stupidity of the
American voter as of the wiles of overly ambitious politicians who might demagogue large segments of the
population. Pretenders who might promise them bread and circuses in exchange for their votes might also
subvert the rational and considered opinion of the country at large. The Constitution is designed to stand as
bedrock in times of great change and turmoil. It reflects a rational and considered opinion of the American
people. If the rule of law prevails in our hearts and minds, we will respect it as the representation of our solemn
will. Opinions change and fluctuate for all kinds of reasons and with great speed. But our respect fundamental
opinion, the Constitution, should stand and guide us through these tempests. The Founders knew that a nation is
composed of more than individual citizens. We are not now and never were intended to be a simple democracy.
Such systems may work when there is a small homogeneous community in question but even in the time of the
Founders our country was thought to be too diverse for such a simplistic plan. There are competing interests,
geographical and regional differences, and in the case of rural versus city life, completely different approaches to
day-to-day life. A President, when representing that nation, must reflect all of this -- not just a segment of it. If
he owes his election only to a popular vote energized and fueled by one set of interests, citizens not part of that
segment cannot feel secure that their interests or rights will be protected.
7.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE FORCES CANDIDATES TO WHO A SUFFICIENT DISTRIBUTION OF
SUPPORT ACROSS THE COUNTRY
William C. Kimberling, Deputy Director, FEC Office of Election Administration, THE ELECTORAL
COLLEGE, 5-92, http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf, accessed 10-4-11.
Proponents thus believe that the practical value of requiring a distribution of popular support outweighs
whatever sentimental value may attach to obtaining a bare majority of the popular support. Indeed, they point out
that the Electoral College system is designed to work in a rational series of defaults: if, in the first instance, a
candidate receives a substantial majority of the popular vote, then that candidate is virtually certain to win
enough electoral votes to be elected president; in the event that the popular vote is extremely close, then the
election defaults to that candidate with the best distribution of popular votes (as evidenced by obtaining the
absolute majority of electoral votes); in the event the country is so divided that no one obtains an absolute
majority of electoral votes, then the choice of president defaults to the States in the U.S. House of
Representatives. One way or another, then, the winning candidate must demonstrate both a sufficient popular
support to govern as well as a sufficient distribution of that support to govern.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
107
NOVEMBER 2011
ELECTORAL COLLEGE SUPERIOR: NATIONAL UNITY cont'd
8.
CANDIDATES HAVE TO APPEAL NATIONALLY NOW TO BE SUCCESSFUL
Judith Best, THE CASE AGAINST DIRECT ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT: A DEFENSE OF THE
ELECTORAL COLLEGE, 1975, p.80-81.
In the congressional hearings and debate, it became apparent that one goal of the reformers is to bring the
influence of all the states into the presidential election. Senator Bayh phrased this concern in the following
terms: As a result of the mysterious arithmetic of the present system, for example, a candidate could win an
electoral majority by capturing popular vote pluralities -- no matter how small -- in only eleven of the largest
states and the District of Columbia. In short, the voters of thirty-nine states would have absolutely no voice in
the choice of a President, even if they were unanimous in their opposition. 34. Theoretically, this is true;
however, it is implausible to the point of fantasy. But underlying this example, we may detect a concern not only
for a plurality President, but also for a President who represents the nation in its diversity, who owes his victory
to broad nationwide support and not to blocs of homogeneous, safe states. It is important to remember that it is
not populous states per se that are favored under the present system but populous pivotal states. A populous state
that is a one-party state may also be neglected by both parties.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
108
NOVEMBER 2011
ELECTORAL COLLEGE SUPERIOR: REGIONALISM
-
WE SHOULD RESPECT REGIONAL DIVERSITY, PRESERVE THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE SYSTEM
John Samples, Director, Center for Representative Government, Cato Institute, "A Critique of the National
Popular Vote Plan for Electing the President," POLICY ANALYSIS n. 622, 10-13-08,
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-622.pdf, accessed 10-4-11.
The NPV plan also mistakenly assumes that the people living in the United States are a unified nation that
should act as one in selecting their leader. But the United States today is deeply polarized along partisan,
ideological, and other dimensions. These differences relate strongly to territorial and regional differences. Rather
than forcing all these differences into a single national electoral district, the nation would do better to foster
institutions that allow people who deeply disagree to live at some distance from one another in fact and in
politics. Instead of further fostering a national identity, we should hold open the possibility of a more
decentralized government in which people who profoundly disagree about things can live separately in peace.
The NPV proposal would make that decentralization of identity marginally more difficult.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
109
NOVEMBER 2011
ELECTORAL COLLEGE SUPERIOR: SMALL STATES
1.
DIRECT ELECTION WOULD ONLY FURTHER MARGINALIZE SMALL STATES
Tara Ross, attorney, "The Electoral College: Enlightened Democracy," LEGAL MEMORANDUM n. 15,
Heritage Foundation, 11-1-04,
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2004/11/The-Electoral-College-Enlightened-Democracy, accessed
10-13-11.
A second argument made by critics is similarly flawed. Although the winner-take-all system causes large states
(especially large swing states) to elicit more attention than small states, these critics erroneously compare the
amount of campaigning in small versus large states under the current system. They should instead compare the
treatment of small states under the current system against the treatment they would receive under a new one.
Today, small states undoubtedly receive less attention than large states (unless, of course, the large state is
considered a safe state). However, a direct vote system would magnify, not improve, this problem because it
would encourage a focus on highly populated areas. Small states would likely never receive as much attention as
their larger neighbors. The goal is not to eliminate this disparity, but to minimize its severity. Under the Electoral
College system, the states are as evenly represented as possible, given that they are not all the same size.
2.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE PROTECTS SMALLER, LESS POPULOUS STATES
Todd Gaziano, Heritage Foundation and Tara Ross, attorney, "How to Make Your Vote Not Count,"
HERITAGE COMMENTARY, 10-26-04,
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Commentary/2004/10/How-to-Make-Your-Vote-Not-Count, accessed
10-3-11.
The Constitution provides that each state's method of choosing electors be determined by the Legislature. In
modern times, all legislatures have chosen popular elections for this purpose. All but two states use the
"winner-take-all" system, awarding their entire slate of electors to the winner of the popular vote. Maine and
Nebraska have a modified system in which some electors are selected based on the overall state winner and some
go to the winner of each congressional district. Electoral College critics argue that the system causes some votes
to be "wasted." Coloradans who voted for Gore in 2000 should have their votes reflected in the national tally,
they say. But this argument is disingenuous. Votes are not wasted simply because they are cast on the losing side
of an election. Is any vote for governor wasted simply because it wasn't cast for the winner? America holds
democratic presidential elections at the state level for an important reason: to protect smaller, less populous
states. Under a national popular election system, presidential candidates would have precious little reason to
focus time and energy on states like Colorado. They would have much more to gain by focusing on the big
media and population centers. This is why almost every state uses the winner-take-all system. It magnifies their
electoral voice, forcing presidential candidates to pay attention even to small states. The initiative would have
Colorado unilaterally weaken its position among the states. With only one or two net electoral votes at stake,
presidential candidates would have little incentive to respond to Colorado's special concerns or visit the state in
future elections.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
110
NOVEMBER 2011
ELECTORAL COLLEGE SUPERIOR: SMALL STATES cont'd
3.
DIRECT ELECTION HURTS PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN SPARSELY POPULATED AREAS
John Samples, Center for Representative Government, Cato Institute, "In Defense of the Electoral College,"
CATO.ORG, 11-10-2K, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4451, accessed 10-11-11.
For those skeptics, I would point out two other advantages the Electoral College offers. First, we must keep in
mind the likely effects of direct popular election of the president. We would probably see elections dominated by
the most populous regions of the country or by several large metropolitan areas. In the 2000 election, for
example, Vice President Gore could have put together a plurality or majority in the Northeast, parts of the
Midwest, and California. The victims in such elections would be those regions too sparsely populated to merit
the attention of presidential candidates. Pure democrats would hardly regret that diminished status, but I wonder
if a large and diverse nation should write off whole parts of its territory. We should keep in mind the regional
conflicts that have plagued large and diverse nations like India, China, and Russia. The Electoral College is a
good antidote to the poison of regionalism because it forces presidential candidates to seek support throughout
the nation. By making sure no state will be left behind, it provides a measure of coherence to our nation.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
111
NOVEMBER 2011
ELECTORAL COLLEGE SUPERIOR: STATE POWER/ACCOUNTABILITY
1.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE IS BEST WAY TO ENSURE THAT THE PRESIDENT IS ACCOUNTABLE TO
THE STATES
Howard Phillips, President, Conservative Caucus Foundation, "Introduction," THE IMPORTANCE OF THE
ELECTORAL COLLEGE, 2004, p.vii.
The Electoral College is likely to play an ever more significant part in determining the governance of our
Republic. The U.S. Constitution spells out the responsibilities of the Legislative Branch in Article I, the
Executive Branch in Article II, and the Judicial Branch in Article III. The Founding Fathers conceived the
Electoral College as the best means of choosing a President who would be, at one and the same time,
independent of, yet accountable to, the Legislative Branch as well as to the States which voluntarily came
together to create our Federal Union, whose delegated, enumerated functions are set forth in the Constitution,
with other powers reserved to the States and the people respectively. The American Republic was founded on
the presupposition that we are endowed by our Creator "with certain inalienable rights", that civil "government
derives its just powers from the consent of the governed", and that the principal policy-setting institution would
be a Congress, consisting of a House chosen by the people, and a Senate, with two members representing each of
the States.
2.
DIRECT ELECTION WOULD ELIMINATE STATE INPUT FROM THE PROCESS
John Samples, Center for Representative Government, Cato Institute, "Leave Electoral College Intact," THE
TENNESSEAN, 3-9-11, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=12859, accessed 10-11-11.
The American Constitution empowers state legislatures to choose the means to select electors who in turn select
the president. Some Americans have argued that this Electoral College should be eliminated in favor of direct
election of the president by a majority of eligible voters. But evidence on the ground suggests little need for this
major constitutional change. Each state has electors equal to its representation in the U.S. House and the U.S.
Senate. The Electoral College thus reflects representation both of populations and of states. Direct election
would eliminate representation of the states.
3.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE ENSURES THAT STATE PREFERENCES/INTERESTS COUNT IN
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS
John Samples, Center for Representative Government, Cato Institute, "In Defense of the Electoral College,"
CATO.ORG, 11-10-2K, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4451, accessed 10-11-11.
Second, the Electoral College makes sure that the states count in presidential elections. As such, it is an
important part of our federalist system -- a system worth preserving. Historically, federalism is central to our
grand constitutional effort to restrain power, but even in our own time we have found that devolving power to
the states leads to important policy innovations (welfare reform). If the Founders had wished to create a pure
democracy, they would have done so. Those who now wish to do away with the Electoral College are welcome
to amend the Constitution, but if they succeed, they will be taking America further away from its roots as a
constitutional republic.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
112
NOVEMBER 2011
ELECTORAL COLLEGE SUPERIOR: TIMELINESS
1.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE GOOD -- PRODUCES AN UNDISPUTED WINNER IN A TIMELY FASHION
Brendan Loy, attorney, "Count Every Vote -- All 538 of Them: A Pragmatic Defense of the Electoral College,"
3-30-08, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1014431, accessed 10-6-11.
Several aspects of the Electoral College system are uniquely tailored to produce an undisputed winner in a
timely fashion. Perhaps the most important of these is the most basic: the vote count that "matters" is a tally of
just 538 votes, not 120 million. As discussed earlier, it is simply impossible to invent a voting system that can
measure the intentions of 120 million people with perfect accuracy. There is too much potential for not just
machine error but human error, by voters and poll workers alike, as well as other factors such as voter fraud and
voter intimidation. There will always be the potential for dispute over the final numbers; there will never be a
single, perfect count. On the other hand, when only 538 ballots are in play, a perfect count actually is possible.
Errors can still occur, as in 2004, when a Democratic elector in Minnesota inadvertently cast her presidential
ballot for vice presidential candidate John Edwards. But it is at least possible, with the exercise of due care, to do
a perfectly accurate tally of such a small number of votes. This mathematical reality makes an "undisputed"
winner much more likely than in a system where the final, ultimately decisive vote count is in the millions rather
than the hundreds.
2.
NEED TIMELY OUTCOMES IN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS TO PROTECT US FROM OUR ENEMIES
Brendan Loy, attorney, "Count Every Vote -- All 538 of Them: A Pragmatic Defense of the Electoral College,"
3-30-08, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1014431, accessed 10-6-11.
Not only must there "never be doubt about who the president is," but also, "an extended period of uncertainty
about who the president will be fosters intrigue and tempts foreign enemies [and] shortens the time for the
orderly transfer of power." This goes back to the timeliness aspect of the "undisputed and timely fashion"
requirement: to fulfill its basic purpose, a presidential election must have a dispute-resolution system that
reliably produces a final resolution prior to January 20, ideally well prior, in order to leave adequate time for the
transition between administrations. Virtually any electoral system will satisfy this criterion in a landslide
election, so it is necessary to consider what would happen in a close election, particularly one that approaches a
statistical tie (such as the "Florida writ large" scenario). "When you must have a swift decision and you have a
draw you need some device to break the tie." Again, the importance of such a device is largely a consequence of
the nature of the office of president. "In the 1994 Winter Olympics, when Nancy Kerrigan finished second in
figure skating on the basis of a one-tenth point difference, it seemed to many that the contest was really a draw
and that two gold medals should have been awarded. Perhaps that could be possible in the Olympics, but we
can't have two presidents." To use another sports analogy, "There comes a time when even the players want the
game to be over and so accept some otherwise questionable way to determine victory, like a sudden-death rule in
football or a shoot-out in hockey."
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
113
NOVEMBER 2011
ELECTORAL COLLEGE SUPERIOR: TIMELINESS cont'd
3.
PRESIDENCY NEEDS TO BE FILLED IN A TIMELY FASHION -- NEED TO AVOID ANY SYSTEM
THAT TRIGGERS RECOUNTS
Judith Best, Professor, Political Science, SUNY-Courtland, "Electoral College: The Debate Continues,"
NATIONAL ARCHIVES EXPERIENCE, 5-21-08,
http://www.archives.gov/nae/news/featured-programs/electoral-college/080521ElectoralCollegePanel.pdf,
accessed 10-13-11.
Well, I'll begin by saying that some of my students do think I'm an old fogy, but I do support a direct popular
federal vote system. I don't think we need living electors. The electoral votes of each state could be cast
automatically. It would take a constitutional amendment to do that and I do think we should change the
contingency election in the House, converting it to the process established by the 25th Amendment for filling
vice-presidential vacancies. The reason why I support having a federal system is because there are multiple
purposes for the presidential election and the first and most obvious is to fill the office in a reasonably swift,
sure, clean, and clear manner. I mean, the presidency's an office that may never go empty and so prolonged
doubt about who the president is would tempt foreign enemies. Thus, any system that would trigger nationwide
recounts or prolonged legal disputes or is more likely to provoke run-off elections, I think, must be avoided.
4.
CURRENT SYSTEM DOES WELL TO IMPOSE NECESSARY DEADLINES/FINALITY
Brendan Loy, attorney, "Count Every Vote -- All 538 of Them: A Pragmatic Defense of the Electoral College,"
3-30-08, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1014431, accessed 10-6-11.
The importance of this January 6 meeting to the goals of finality and timeliness can scarcely be overstated.
Whatever disagreements may arise regarding the mid-December deadlines, there can be no doubt that once
Congress has rendered its decision, the matter is closed and the president chosen. This is crucial, for it eliminates
the possibility that disputes over close presidential elections could drag on into the new term, as in the
aforementioned Washington gubernatorial and Florida congressional races. And while any presidential election
system could impose a supposedly final deadline -- for example, a direct national popular-vote election could
require, statutorily or even constitutionally, that states' results be finalized and submitted to a central counting
authority by a date certain -- there is something about the congressional count that makes January 6 more
inviolable than a mere bureaucratic certification deadline (such as, for instance, the November 14 deadline that
was set aside by the Florida Supreme Court in 2000103). Because Congress, a coequal branch of the federal
government, must take independent action to validate and finalize each state's result, January 6 actually signifies
the beginning of a wholly new phase in the process of choosing a president. Starting a new phase emphasizes
that the previous phase is entirely over and unreviewable, in much the same way that instant replay in football
becomes unavailable once a new play has started. Moreover, clear constitutional language and two centuries of
precedent make clear that this phase is final and decisive. It is difficult to imagine a court attempting to alter the
result once Congress has voted to accept a state's electors, except perhaps in a challenge to the constitutionality
of the system itself (e.g., a challenge to the interstate-compact system). Despite the rhetorical appeal of the
argument that "every vote must be counted," further review of election tallies has no relevance once Congress
has accepted a state's electoral slate -- and this is how it must be, lest a very close, perhaps even statistically tied
election create a true constitutional crisis whereby the president's identity remains in legal doubt long after the
inauguration.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
114
NOVEMBER 2011
ELECTORAL COLLEGE SUPERIOR: TIMELINESS cont'd
5.
DIRECT ELECTION WOULD REMOVE THE NECESSARY DEADLINES IN THE CURRENT SYSTEM
Brendan Loy, attorney, "Count Every Vote -- All 538 of Them: A Pragmatic Defense of the Electoral College,"
3-30-08, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1014431, accessed 10-6-11.
Yet another problem with a true direct election system is the elimination of the mid- December and
early-January deadlines -- which are, as noted earlier, more than mere deadlines, but are in fact beginning and
ending dates of wholly independent stages in the election process. This multi-stage aspect of the Electoral
College system creates the aforementioned "instant replay" effect: once a new play starts, the old play can no
longer be reviewed. Once the electors have voted, and especially once Congress has counted and certified their
votes, challenges to close elections in individual states become irrelevant, thus preserving the integrity of the
result and preventing a legitimacy crisis if disputes arise later. A true direct election system might have more
malleable deadlines, as it would likely be a much more linear process. Even after the "final" certification of the
national vote tally is announced, it is not difficult to imagine it being revisited in the name of "counting every
vote" if a late development threatens to change the result. A state or even a federal court might adopt the logic of
the Florida Supreme Court, which extended a statutory deadline on the basis of a legal interpretation that rested
in part on its overarching belief that "the will of the people, not a hyper-technical reliance upon statutory
provisions, should be our guiding principle in election cases." The point here is not to lambaste the Florida court
or rail against judicial activism, but simply to point out that the battle cry "count every vote" is a compelling one,
and well-meaning judges may be sorely tempted to follow its call even when important deadlines stand squarely
in the way. This may appeal to strict majoritarians, but the consequences for timeliness and certainty would be
disastrous. A good example of what could occur in a fairly linear direct-election system, devoid of the sort of
truly ironclad deadlines that characterize the Electoral College system, is the 2004 Washington gubernatorial
race. As noted earlier, vanquished Republican candidate Dino Rossi did not concede until he was defeated in a
final court challenge on June 7, 2005-fully seven months after the election and five months after Gregoire's
inauguration. Consequently, his election contest morphed into a "five-month legal effort to remove her" from
office. When the courts finally forced Rossi to give up, a spokeswoman for Gregoire -- by this point roughly 10
percent done with her four-year term -- said the decision "brings an end to a long campaign. This is a moment
that will allow her and the state to move forward in addressing all of the pressing issues before us." It should go
without saying that a similar scenario would be devastating on the national level. The impact of such a cloud
hanging over the president's legitimacy would be far-reaching and crippling. Thus, in an extremely close
election, timeliness and certainty easily outweigh any "right winner" benefit, since the scenario in question could
only occur in an extraordinarily close election, where the "right winner" is essentially a flip of a mathematical
coin anyway.
6.
DIRECT ELECTION WOULD ELIMINATE THE CURRENT TIMELINESS SAFEGUARDS
Brendan Loy, attorney, "Count Every Vote -- All 538 of Them: A Pragmatic Defense of the Electoral College,"
3-30-08, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1014431, accessed 10-6-11.
There is, of course, no history of direct popular-vote presidential elections to draw upon in evaluating such a
system, but it only takes a modicum of imagination to envision some of the difficulties that would inevitably
arise in close elections. A direct election system would strip away several all-important safeguards, inherent to
the Electoral College system, that ensure a timely resolution and prevent a constitutional crisis -- and all in the
name of choosing the "right winner," which is impossible to do with any certainty in a close election anyway,
even if one accepts the dubious proposition that "the right winner" means nothing more than "the guy who got
the most votes."
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
115
NOVEMBER 2011
ELECTORAL COLLEGE SUPERIOR: TIMELINESS cont'd
7.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE IS VITAL IN KEEPING A CHECK ON ELECTION DISPUTES
Brendan Loy, attorney, "Count Every Vote -- All 538 of Them: A Pragmatic Defense of the Electoral College,"
3-30-08, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1014431, accessed 10-6-11.
The importance of this dispute-avoidance feature of the Electoral College is often underappreciated even by the
system's defenders, who tend to focus more on principles of federalism. Ford administration official David Lissy,
however, made the "quarantine" argument strongly in a letter to the editor of the Washington Post on November
11, 2000: "Imagine this year, with the same set of election facts, what would have happened with a
winner-take-all popular vote as the decisive factor. In an election as close as this one, instead of just a recount
and other disputes involving Florida, we would be facing claims in many states (even those with a clear majority
for one candidate or the other) of vote fraud or other inequality. Why? Because it is not that hard to believe that
in the country as a whole a couple of hundred thousand votes could be switched. And the truth is, there is always
error of some sort somewhere." Judith Best also emphasized this point nearly three decades earlier, devoting
almost an entire chapter to it in her 1971 book The Case Against Direct Election of the President. A few key
excerpts from her discussion of the issue: In 1968, there were approximately 167,000 voting precincts in the
United States, 3,130 counties, fifty different sets of state electoral laws, and countless unwritten state practices.
Direct election would expand the field for challenge. Instead of being confined to a few strategic states, the
search for votes and for irregularities could be nationwide and could extend to every voting precinct. o Instead of
limiting contests to closely divided states, as the unit rule does, the direct-election plan opens the door to
contests in any and every state. o If the defeated candidate called for recounts in isolated states where he had
reason to believe irregularities worked to his detriment, the winning candidate would surely call for recounts in
other states where he believed he could pick up some advantage. The distortion created by the unit rule makes it
more difficult for the loser to challenge the results in a close popular contest. The defeated candidate must pick
up votes in particular states. It may well be more difficult to pick up five thousand to ten thousand votes in
Missouri or Nevada than to pick up a hundred thousand votes in the country as a whole. The acceptability of the
result to the defeated candidate is the key to election certainty. Once the loser has conceded, once he has
accepted the results as definitive, the continuity of government is assured. But if he questions the results -- if he
fights on by means of recounts and litigation -- doubts, delay, and even paralysis in government may follow. It is
not at all clear that recounts would be completed in the time interval between the November election and
inauguration day, January 20. The swift resolution of contests depends on a number of factors, including
individual state election-contest provisions, the perseverance of the contestant, and the delaying tactics adopted
by his opponent. Alexander Bickel, also writing in 1971, made much the same points: Direct popular election
comes equipped with its own brand of statistical nightmare. o Suppose that the result is not only close, but that
there are charges of error or fraud, as in 1876 and also in 1960. At present, with the result magnified in the
electoral college, the charges are most often immaterial, since most often the reassignment of some popular votes
would not change the outcome. If it would, a recount or perhaps litigation may be called for in one or two states.
But if the entire national popular vote is decisive, the recount in a close election might have to be nationwide.
Would it be complete by January 20?
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
116
NOVEMBER 2011
ELECTORAL COLLEGE SUPERIOR: TRANSFER OF POWER
1.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE IS DESIRABLE -- ENSURES STABLE TRANSFER OF POWER, FAIR
ELECTIONS
Tara Ross, attorney, "The Electoral College: Enlightened Democracy," LEGAL MEMORANDUM n. 15,
Heritage Foundation, 11-1-04,
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2004/11/The-Electoral-College-Enlightened-Democracy, accessed
10-13-11.
America's election systems have operated smoothly for more than 200 years because the Electoral College
accomplishes its intended purposes. America's presidential election process preserves federalism, prevents chaos,
grants definitive electoral outcomes, and prevents tyrannical or unreasonable rule. The Founding Fathers created
a stable, well-planned and carefully designed system -- and it works. Past elections, even the elections of
Presidents who lost the popular vote, are testaments to the ingenuity of the Founding Fathers. In each case, the
victor was able to succeed only because his opponent did not build the national coalition that is required by the
Electoral College. In each case, smaller states were protected from their larger neighbors. In each case, the
presidential election system functioned effectively to give the country a President with broad-based support.
Alexander Hamilton was right when he described the Electoral College in The Federalist No. 68. Perhaps the
Electoral College is imperfect -- but a perfect solution is doubtless unachievable. Nevertheless, the presidential
election process devised by the Framers is certainly excellent.
2.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE IS VITAL TO THE PEACEFUL HANDOVER OF POWER
Joe Postell, "Will the Left Stop Complaining About the Electoral College?" THE FOUNDRY, Heritage
Foundation, 11-12-08,
http://blog.heritage.org/2008/11/12/will-the-left-finally-stop-complaining-about-the-electoral-college/, accessed
10-3-11.
Many people have observed, approvingly, that the election of 1800 was the first time in human history that
power shifted from one party to another without violence and bloodshed. One woman wrote at the time that "The
changes in administration, which in every government and in every age have most generally been epochs of
confusion, villainy and bloodshed, in this our happy country take place without any species of distraction, or
disorder." Our Electoral College is critical to the peaceful transfer of authority following presidential elections. It
helps to ensure that the outcome is widely viewed to be legitimate. One of the great causes of instability in a
nation is when the leaders of the government are viewed as illegitimate. This was all too evident in the last eight
years.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
117
NOVEMBER 2011
ELECTORAL COLLEGE SUPERIOR: TWO-PARTY SYSTEM
1.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE DISCOURAGES THIRD PARTY CANDIDATES -- STABILIZES THE
POLITICAL SYSTEM
William C. Kimberling, Deputy Director, FEC Office of Election Administration, THE ELECTORAL
COLLEGE, 5-92, http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf, accessed 10-4-11.
Proponents further argue that the Electoral College contributes to the political stability of the nation by
encouraging a two-party system. There can be no doubt that the Electoral College has encouraged and helps to
maintain a two- party system in the United States. This is true simply because it is extremely difficult for a new
or minor party to win enough popular votes in enough States to have a chance of winning the presidency. Even if
they won enough electoral votes to force the decision into the U.S. House of Representatives, they would still
have to have a majority of over half the State delegations in order to elect their candidate -- and in that case, they
would hardly be considered a minor party.
2.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE IS IMPORTANT -- COMPELS CREATION OF BROADLY-BASED POLITICAL
PARTIES
George F. Will, "Don't Mess with the Electoral College," NATIONAL POST, 10-7-11,
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/10/07/george-f-will-dont-mess-with-the-electoral-college/, accessed
10-13-11.
Such majorities do not materialize spontaneously. They are built by a two-party system's candidates who are
compelled to cater to entire states and to create coalitions of states. Today's electoral vote system provides
incentives for parties to alter the attributes that make them uncompetitive in important states. It shapes the
nation's regime and hence the national character. The Electoral College today functions differently than the
Founders envisioned -- they did not anticipate political parties -- but it does buttress the values encouraged by
the federalism the Framers favoured, which Pennsylvanians, and others, should respect.
3.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN A MODERATE, TWO-PARTY SYSTEM
Judith Best, Professor, Political Science, SUNY-Courtland, "Electoral College: The Debate Continues,"
NATIONAL ARCHIVES EXPERIENCE, 5-21-08,
http://www.archives.gov/nae/news/featured-programs/electoral-college/080521ElectoralCollegePanel.pdf,
accessed 10-13-11.
A third thing is that the system should support our moderate two-party system which is a great source of our
national stability. Multi-party systems are notoriously unstable. Any presidential election system that abolishes
the federal unit rule, the winner-take-all rule will encourage multiple minor party entries and so the coalition
building that takes place prior to the general election would break down. But last and most importantly, it must
preserve the federal principle because without this the separation of powers will fail. The federal principle of
state representation is the key because it's the primary barrier to something that Madison greatly feared, which is
majority faction. Our Constitution seeks something higher and better than majority rule. It seeks majority rule
with minority consent and it gains that consent because the federal principle gives minorities of all kinds
multiple opportunities to be part of the majority in the various aspects of the whole government, and so the states
are the building blocks of the whole government. An attack on the federal principle cannot be limited to the
presidency alone because if the federal principle is illegitimate for the presidency, then what of the Senate? And
of course, if the Senate, then it affects the justices and if it's illegitimate for the president it's illegitimate for
amendments and it puts the very ratification of the Constitution in doubt. Speaking against proposals to change
the system John Kennedy said, "It's not only the unit vote the winner-take-all vote, for the presidency that we are
talking about. It's a whole solar system of governmental power. If it's proposed to change the balance of power
of one of the elements of this solar system it's necessary to change the others."
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
118
NOVEMBER 2011
ELECTORAL COLLEGE SUPERIOR: TWO-PARTY SYSTEM cont'd
4.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE IS VITAL TO PROTECTING THE TWO-PARTY SYSTEM
Brendan Loy, attorney, "Count Every Vote -- All 538 of Them: A Pragmatic Defense of the Electoral College,"
3-30-08, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1014431, accessed 10-6-11.
It might be tempting to assert that such splintering would not occur in America because of the historical strength
of the two-party system. This position, however, ignores the crucial rule played by the Electoral College itself in
preserving and promoting the two-party system. The constitution's majority requirement, coupled with the
winner-take-all rule in nearly all of the states, makes it nearly impossible for a non-regional third-party
candidacy to make a dent in a presidential race. Switching to a direct-election system would change all that. "To
conclude that the two-party habit is so tenacious among our people that it would survive abolition of the
electoral college is to take a long leap in the dark."
5.
DIRECT ELECTION WOULD DESTROY THE TWO-PARTY SYSTEM -- DANGEROUSLY FRAGMENTS
THE POLITY
Judith Best, THE CASE AGAINST DIRECT ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT: A DEFENSE OF THE
ELECTORAL COLLEGE, 1975, p.212-213.
Third, an electoral system should support our nonideological two-party system. The present electoral-count
procedure has nurtured and protected that two-party system. Direct election would alter or erode this system,
which "more than any other American Institution, consciously, actively and directly nurtures consensus." 4.
Once the unit rule, which discriminates against third and fourth candidacies, is abolished, party convention
control over nominations would break down, since candidates would not have to win statewide pluralities.
Multiple candidacies might be common, since each new candidacy in itself would be an incentive for the entry
of another. The more candidates, the more likely a runoff. The second chance that a runoff provides is tempting,
not only because of its effect on candidates' perceptions of their prospects, but also because of its effect on voter
psychology. If nominating the President is the key function of the national parties and perhaps even heir reason
for being, as many political analysts have suggested, direct election would emasculate, if not destroy, the
two-party system by breaking down party control over nominations. By abandoning the unit rule, which has
acted as a goad, prodding the parties to broaden their appeal and widen their bases of support, the direct-election
system would release latent tendencies toward ideological politics. The prospects are that the direct-election plan
would increase the incidence of party splits, encourage the development of minor parties, undermine party
control over the crucial task of nomination, postpone compromise, simplify and dramatize issues, increase the
importance of homogeneous regions and one-party states, disturb the geographic distribution of party support,
reduce the influence of state party leaders, and encourage the formation of doctrinaire and single-issue parties.
Even if the unit rule is not a major pillar of the presidential two-party system, even if, instead, the two-party
system is mainly supported by noninstitutional factors, by "a happy balance struck between consensus and
conflict," 5. the present turmoil in the nation, the present degree of conflict, indicates this is no time to kick away
the institutional props, for, as Allan Sindler concludes, two-partyism is still a mystery, and "institutional
arrangements, even if secondary, also shape the party system; and both categories complement rather than
compete in their effects."
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
119
NOVEMBER 2011
ELECTORAL COLLEGE SUPERIOR: TWO-PARTY SYSTEM cont'd
6.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE IS NECESSARY TO UNIFY NATIONAL PARTIES
Thomas E. Cronin, "Forward," THE CHOICE OF THE PEOPLE? DEBATING THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE,
1996, p.xvi-xvii.
Proponents of the electoral college system say it minimizes the impact of minor parties and, because of the
unit-rule provision (used by all states except Maine and Nebraska), encourages a politics of moderation. Under
the present system losers at party nominating conventions generally abide by their party's choice. With a direct
vote, these same losers could be tempted to go after the presidency anyway, hoping to force a runoff election.
John Sears, campaign manager for Ronald Reagan's failed presidential bid in 1976, says that if the direct-vote
method had been in operation, he would have counseled Reagan to bypass the Republican convention altogether.
Critics of the direct vote suggest that the major parties are, on the national level, only loosely assembled
aggregates of state party organizations. Whatever internal discipline they possess comes primarily from their
ability to make their nominations stick. They do this primarily because winner-take-all discourages disgruntled
losers from launching a campaign on their own. If winner-take-all is removed, say the opponents of direct
election, the major parties will lose one of their most potent weapons for enforcing their nominating decisions.
Historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., fears that tiny parties or single-cause candidates would be able to magnify their
strength through the direct-vote scheme. Anti-abortion parties, Black Power parties, anti-busing parties, anti-gun
control parties, pro-homosexual-rights parties -- for that matter. Communist or Fascist parties -- have a dim
future in the Electoral College. In direct elections they could drain away enough votes, cumulative from state to
state, to prevent the formation of a national majority -- and to give themselves strong bargaining positions in a
case of a run-off.
7.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE ENCOURAGES POLITICAL COALITION-BUILDING, DISCOURAGES THIRD
PARTIES
William C. Kimberling, Deputy Director, FEC Office of Election Administration, THE ELECTORAL
COLLEGE, 5-92, http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf, accessed 10-4-11.
In addition to protecting the presidency from impassioned but transitory third party movements, the practical
effect of the Electoral College (along with the single-member district system of representation in the Congress)
is to virtually force third party movements into one of the two major political parties. Conversely, the major
parties have every incentive to absorb minor party movements in their continual attempt to win popular
majorities in the States. In this process of assimilation, third party movements are obliged to compromise their
more radical views if they hope to attain any of their more generally acceptable objectives. Thus we end up with
two large, pragmatic political parties which tend to the center of public opinion rather than dozens of smaller
political parties catering to divergent and sometimes extremist views. In other words, such a system forces
political coalitions to occur within the political parties rather than within the government.
8.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE SUPPORTS TWO-PARTY MODERATION
Judith Best, THE CASE AGAINST DIRECT ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT: A DEFENSE OF THE
ELECTORAL COLLEGE, 1975, p.207.
The electoral-count system is not neutral; it has a built-in bias in favor of the two-party system, since it
discriminates against both sectional and national third parties. The built-in necessity to win broad, cross-national
support may have a tempering effect on the character of the two major parties. It is generally believed that the
major parties are moderate and nonideological. Whether the electoral system is the "cause" of this phenomenon
is debatable, but it clearly supports moderation by giving the parties the incentive to create broad, cross-national
coalitions.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
120
NOVEMBER 2011
ELECTORAL COLLEGE SUPERIOR: ANSWERS TO: "BUSH V. GORE"
1.
2000 ELECTION ACTUALLY VALIDATES THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE SYSTEM
Brendan Loy, attorney, "Count Every Vote -- All 538 of Them: A Pragmatic Defense of the Electoral College,"
3-30-08, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1014431, accessed 10-6-11.
It is possible, however, to take precisely the opposite view: that the 2000 presidential election was the ultimate
argument for retaining the Electoral College. This position is not sexy or politically correct; it is rooted in bald
practicality, not democratic idealism. Yet it has considerable merit. A national popular vote system may be a
good idea in theory, but in reality, it would become a nightmare in a close election. And the interstate-compact
system, a bizarre extra-constitutional hybrid that is neither a true popular-vote election nor a functional Electoral
College, is even more nightmarish than direct popular-vote plans. As noted in the above hypothetical, it creates
unclear lines of decision and a high likelihood of lengthy and unpredictable legal disputes when the winning
candidate's margin is narrow.
2.
2000 ELECTION WAS AN ANOMALY
Brendan Loy, attorney, "Count Every Vote -- All 538 of Them: A Pragmatic Defense of the Electoral College,"
3-30-08, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1014431, accessed 10-6-11.
One reason the 2000 election was such a shock to so many casual observers is that an electoral inversion had not
happened in a very long time. The election broke a string of 27 consecutive presidential elections in which the
popular and electoral vote tallies had been in agreement, dating all the way back to 1888. In that year, Benjamin
Harrison lost the popular vote by 94,530 votes (0.83%) to Grover Cleveland, yet finished with an electoral
majority of 233 to 168. This is arguably the "purest" inversion in history, as Cleveland's margin, while narrow, is
large enough that he was almost certainly the true winner nationally -- and unlike in 2000 and 1876 (to be
discussed shortly), the result did not hinge on a hotly disputed state or handful of states. Like 2000, the 1888
election did come down a single decisive state, but that state was not extraordinarily close. Cleveland would
have won the presidency if he had won his home state of New York, which he lost by 1.09 percent.
Alternatively, he would have prevailed if he had won both Indiana (lost by 0.44%) and Ohio (lost by 2.33%).
Those three are the only Harrison-won states with margins of less than 2.5 percent.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
121
NOVEMBER 2011
ELECTORAL COLLEGE SUPERIOR: ANSWERS TO:
"DEMOCRACY CONCERNS" (GENERAL)
1.
PURE DEMOCRACY HAS MAJOR DOWNSIDES -- ACTUALLY INCREASES THE RISKS OF SLIDING
INTO TYRANNY
Tara Ross, attorney, "The Electoral College: Enlightened Democracy," LEGAL MEMORANDUM n. 15,
Heritage Foundation, 11-1-04,
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2004/11/The-Electoral-College-Enlightened-Democracy, accessed
10-13-11.
The authors of the Constitution had studied the history of many failed democratic systems, and they strove to
create a different form of government. Indeed, James Madison, delegate from Virginia, argued that unfettered
majorities such as those found in pure democracies tend toward tyranny.Madison stated it this way: [In a pure
democracy], [a] common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a
communication and concert results from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the
inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have
ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or
the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.
Alexander Hamilton agreed that "[t]he ancient democracies, in which the people themselves deliberated, never
possessed one feature of good government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure, deformity." Other
early Americans concurred. John Adams, who signed the Declaration of Independence and later became
President, declared, "[D]emocracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was
a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." Another signatory to the Declaration of Independence, Benjamin
Rush, stated, "A simple democracy is one of the greatest of evils."
2.
WE ARE A REPUBLIC -- DIRECT VOTING IS NOT KEY TO DEMOCRACY
John Samples, Center for Representative Government, Cato Institute, "In Defense of the Electoral College,"
CATO.ORG, 11-10-2K, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4451, accessed 10-11-11.
Critics have long derided the Electoral College as a fusty relic of a bygone era, an unnecessary institution that
one day might undermine democracy by electing a minority president. That day has arrived, assuming Gov. Bush
wins the Florida recount as seems likely. The fact that Bush is poised to become president without a plurality of
the vote contravenes neither the letter nor the spirit of the Constitution. The wording of our basic law is clear:
The winner in the Electoral College takes office as president. But what of the spirit of our institutions? Are we
not a democracy that honors the will of the people? The very question indicates a misunderstanding of our
Constitution. James Madison's famous Federalist No. 10 makes clear that the Founders fashioned a republic, not
a pure democracy. To be sure, they knew that the consent of the governed was the ultimate basis of government,
but the Founders denied that such consent could be reduced to simple majority or plurality rule. In fact, nothing
could be more alien to the spirit of American constitutionalism than equating democracy will the direct,
unrefined will of the people. Recall the ways our constitution puts limits on any unchecked power, including the
arbitrary will of the people. Power at the national level is divided among the three branches, each reflecting a
different constituency. Power is divided yet again between the national government and the states. Madison
noted that these twofold divisions -- the separation of powers and federalism -- provided a "double security" for
the rights of the people.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
122
NOVEMBER 2011
ELECTORAL COLLEGE SUPERIOR: ANSWERS TO:
"DEMOCRACY CONCERNS" (GENERAL) cont'd
3.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE DOES NOT CONFOUND MAJORITY RULE
John Samples, Center for Representative Government, Cato Institute, "Leave Electoral College Intact," THE
TENNESSEAN, 3-9-11, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=12859, accessed 10-11-11.
Critics also say the Electoral College distorts democracy and majority rule. In theory, the framers of the
Constitution are guilty as charged; the Electoral College is not direct majority rule. The status quo does not
depart from the preferences of the entire electorate. Yale professor David Mayhew looked at presidential
elections back to 1948 and found on average no difference in the Democratic Party's vote share in the general
population and in the decisive state in the Electoral College. For example, John Kerry received 48.8 percent of
the vote of the entire electorate and 48.9 percent of the vote in Ohio, the state that gave George W. Bush the
presidency in 2004. Many states, large and small, have good reason to maintain the Electoral College. The
Electoral College follows the presidential vote in the overall electorate. With so few benefits from change, why
should state legislatures move toward direct election of the president?
4.
OUR NATION WAS FOUNDED AS A REPUBLIC, NOT A DIRECT DEMOCRACY
Tara Ross, attorney, "The Electoral College: Enlightened Democracy," LEGAL MEMORANDUM n. 15,
Heritage Foundation, 11-1-04,
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2004/11/The-Electoral-College-Enlightened-Democracy, accessed
10-13-11.
Contrary to modern perceptions, the founding generation did not intend to create a direct democracy. To the
contrary, the Founders deliberately created a republic -- or, arguably, a republican democracy -- that would
incorporate a spirit of compromise and deliberation into decision-making. Such a form of government, the
Founders believed, would allow them to achieve two potentially conflicting objectives: avoiding the "tyranny of
the majority" inherent in pure democratic systems, while allowing the "sense of the people" to be reflected in the
new American government. Moreover, a republican government, organized on federalist principles, would allow
the delegates to achieve the most difficult of their tasks: enabling large and small sovereign states to live
peacefully alongside each other.
5.
PRESIDENTIAL BIAS TOWARDS URBAN VOTERS IS JUSTIFIED -- CHECKS SMALL-TOWN BIAS OF
THE CONGRESSIONAL SYSTEM
Judith Best, THE CASE AGAINST DIRECT ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT: A DEFENSE OF THE
ELECTORAL COLLEGE, 1975, p.208.
The existing system creates certain advantages for particular groups of voters, which have a bearing on public
policy and its formation. Under this system large competitive states have an advantage. It may be argued that
they should be the primary battlegrounds for the Presidency, since they may best represent the nation in its
diversity. The system also creates advantages for urban-suburban voters and well-organized urban minorities.
The Presidency has been sensitive to urban and minority interests -- according to some political analysts,
because the parties have perceived the urban-ethnic advantage and taken it into consideration in selecting
candidates and issues. To the extent that Congress has a rural -- small-town bias, this Presidential sensitivity to
urban-ethnic problems provides a desirable balance.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
123
NOVEMBER 2011
ELECTORAL COLLEGE SUPERIOR: ANSWERS TO:
"EVENS OUT CAMPAIGN SPENDING/ATTENTION"
1.
DIRECT ELECTIONS WOULD ACTUALLY ALLOW CANDIDATES TO IGNORE EVEN LARGER
PARTS OF THE COUNTRY
Tara Ross, attorney, "The Electoral College: Enlightened Democracy," LEGAL MEMORANDUM n. 15,
Heritage Foundation, 11-1-04,
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2004/11/The-Electoral-College-Enlightened-Democracy, accessed
10-13-11.
The primary effect of America's federalist presidential election process is to protect the freedom of individuals -particularly those in small states and sparsely populated areas. Perhaps the best method of demonstrating the
benefits of federalism is to expose the evils suffered without it. As the system stands today, presidential
candidates have no incentive to poll large margins in any one state. Winning 50.1 percent of the votes in a state
is as effective as winning 100 percent of the votes. Presidential candidates therefore tour the nation, campaigning
in all states and seeking to build a national coalition that will enable them to win a majority of states' electoral
votes. Direct popular elections, by contrast, would present different incentives. Suddenly, winning 100 percent
of the votes is better than winning 50.1 percent of the votes. In fact, it may be easier to rack up votes in a
friendly state than to gain 50.1 percent of votes in each of two states of similar size, although the payoff would
be essentially the same. The result? Democrats would almost certainly spend most of their time in the large
population centers in California and New York. Republicans would campaign in the South and Midwest. Large
cities would be focused on almost exclusively as the candidates seek to turn out as many votes as possible in
"their" region of the country. Small states, rural areas, and sparsely populated regions would find themselves
with little to no voice in presidential selection. In this scenario, a handful of states (or heavily populated cities)
win, while the remaining states and less-populated areas suffer significantly.
2.
SWING STATE FOCUS IS JUSTIFIED -- 'SAFE' STATUS MEANS THAT THE AVAILABLE
CANDIDATES REPRESENT THE INTERESTS OF MOST OF THE STATES
Tara Ross, attorney, "The Electoral College: Enlightened Democracy," LEGAL MEMORANDUM n. 15,
Heritage Foundation, 11-1-04,
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2004/11/The-Electoral-College-Enlightened-Democracy, accessed
10-13-11.
Many critics dispute this description of the two types of elections. They contend that the current system does not
encourage presidential candidates to tour the nation, but instead encourages a focus on mid-sized "swing" states.
"Safe" states and small states, they allege, do not receive nearly as much attention on this national tour. There is
an element of truth in this observation. Yet to the degree that safe states do not receive a proportionate amount of
attention during campaigns, the logical conclusion is that those states, by and large, must already feel that one of
the two presidential candidates represents their interests fairly well. When a candidate ceases to adequately
understand and represent one of "his" state's interests, the discontent in that state is usually expressed pretty
quickly. Consider the situation in West Virginia in recent decades. Democrats considered West Virginia a safe
state for years; thus, the state probably saw less post-nomination campaign activity from 1960-2000 than it might
have otherwise. However, in 2000, the Bush campaign recognized an opportunity to gain a foothold in the state
due to concern about the impact of Gore's environmental policies on the coal-mining industry and his support for
gun control. Bush took advantage of this discontent, and he spent more than $2 million communicating his
message to West Virginia's voters. When election results were tallied, Bush became the first Republican since
1928 to win an open race for the presidency in West Virginia. In 2004, West Virginia is no longer considered a
safe state for Democrats.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
124
NOVEMBER 2011
ELECTORAL COLLEGE SUPERIOR: ANSWERS TO:
"EVENS OUT CAMPAIGN SPENDING/ATTENTION" cont'd
3.
DIRECT VOTE WOULD NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF CAMPAIGN CONCENTRATION -- WOULD
ONLY REARRANGE WHERE IT OCCURS
John Samples, Director, Center for Representative Government, Cato Institute, "A Critique of the National
Popular Vote Plan for Electing the President," POLICY ANALYSIS n. 622, 10-13-08,
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-622.pdf, accessed 10-4-11.
Twenty states that control 221 electoral votes would receive more visits under a direct vote for president; twenty
states that control 210 electoral votes receive more visits under the electoral college. Ten states and the District
of Columbia (107 electoral votes) neither gain nor lose visits by moving to a direct vote. Looked at this way, the
states that would benefit from a direct vote are 49 electoral votes short of the majority needed to pass NPV. The
states that would gain comprised 41 percent of eligible voters in the 2006 elections; the states that would lose
under direct election comprised 38 percent which implies that 21 percent of the nation's eligible voters lives in
states that would neither gain nor lose by moving to direct election. In sum, the same number of states would
lose from a direct vote as would gain, and the losers control almost as many electoral votes as the gainers.
Finally, if we add the states that have reason to be indifferent since they neither gain nor lose from a direct vote
to the states that would lose visits, we discover a coalition of states who have no reason to move to a direct vote
and control a majority of 317 electoral votes. The number of eligible voters tells a similar story. 59 percent of
eligible voters in 2006 lived in states that would either lose influence under direct election or would be
indifferent about moving away from the electoral college.
4.
DIRECT ELECTION WOULD NOT EVEN OUT CAMPAIGNING
John Samples, Director, Center for Representative Government, Cato Institute, Testimony before the
Pennsylvania House Committee on Intergovernmental Affairs, 10-18-07,
http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-js-10182007.html, accessed 10-3-11.
Even if all votes are weighed equally in an election, the cost of attracting a marginal vote for president would
vary. For example, it would be less expensive to attract votes in populous states because per-capita media costs
would be lower. Recent elections have seen a modest relationship between the closeness of state presidential
result and the number of its eligible voters. In that respect, the marginal effect of the NPV plan would be to draw
candidates toward large, competitive states, the same as the status quo. The cost of votes also depends on the
efficiency of a campaign organization. The least costly votes are likely to be found in large, competitive states
where the organizations have become efficient through competition and in large, non-competitive states where
party organizations may have unique advantages in "running up the score." In the latter case, the NPV plan
might bring some candidate attention to states that are now non-competitive and ignored. But running up the
score in party strongholds may also increase the regionalization of presidential politics.
5.
DIRECT ELECTION WOULD NOT GIVE ANY STATES ANY MORE POWER
John Samples, Director, Center for Representative Government, Cato Institute, "A Critique of the National
Popular Vote Plan for Electing the President," POLICY ANALYSIS n. 622, 10-13-08,
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-622.pdf, accessed 10-4-11.
In practice, actual influence under the electoral college depends on the likelihood a state and its voters will have
a competitive election and be decisive in determining the outcome of the presidential election. Some studies
indicate some more populous states are more likely to decide an election under the electoral college and thus
have more power. More recent studies, however, indicate either the power of a vote is about the same under the
electoral college and the direct vote or that state size has little relationship to actual influence under either
system. It is far from clear that most states would enjoy more influence over the presidential election in a direct
vote system.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
125
NOVEMBER 2011
ELECTORAL COLLEGE SUPERIOR: ANSWERS TO:
"EVENS OUT CAMPAIGN SPENDING/ATTENTION" cont'd
6.
ONLY A MINORITY OF STATES WOULD GAIN FROM A SHIFT TO DIRECT ELECTIONS
John Samples, Director, Center for Representative Government, Cato Institute, Testimony before the
Pennsylvania House Committee on Intergovernmental Affairs, 10-18-07,
http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-js-10182007.html, accessed 10-3-11.
As part of my analysis, I have a constructed a measure of the relative gain or loss in influence over the
presidential election for each state. The results may be found in Table 1 attached to the essay I provided to the
committee. Permit me to summarize my findings. Twenty states may expect to gain from moving to direct
election. Most of those gains are quite small. Six states may expect to substantially gain from the change. I
should note that my analysis suggests that Pennsylvania will gain the most, relative to its current influence. In
contrast, twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia lose influence from the move to direct election. Of
those, twenty states and the District of Columbia may be expected to lose substantial influence. The twenty
states that may expect to gain from the change control 321 electoral votes, 51 more than a majority. The states
that gain substantially from the change (more than 10 percent) control 121 electoral votes. The states that gain a
great deal from the change are not a majority in the electoral college.
7.
LARGE STATES HAVE LOTS OF INFLUENCE UNDER THE CURRENT SYSTEM
John Samples, Center for Representative Government, Cato Institute, "Leave Electoral College Intact," THE
TENNESSEAN, 3-9-11, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=12859, accessed 10-11-11.
Critics have long argued that the Electoral College gives too much power to states with the smallest populations.
Their point is accurate, but greatly exaggerated. The populations of large states still give them great weight in
selecting the president. No doubt smaller states would have less influence under direct election. The harm done
to small states, however, need not translate into gains for states with larger populations. No doubt some large
states would benefit. But in general, big states may lose influence. Why? In the current system, the most
influential state is the state that casts the electoral votes that put a candidate into the Oval Office. In 2000, that
state was Florida. In 2004, Ohio. This is not terribly surprising; both have significant populations. Larger states
have more electoral votes and thus are more likely, all things being equal, to cast the deciding vote. Since the
1980s, several studies have confirmed this. In actual operation, the most influential states in selecting the
president are likely to have large populations. State legislatures in large states have reasons to support the
Electoral College.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
126
NOVEMBER 2011
ELECTORAL COLLEGE SUPERIOR: ANSWERS TO:
"MINORITY CANDIDATE VICTORIES"
1.
PRESIDENTS CAN EFFECTIVELY GOVERN EVEN IF THEY DO NOT OBTAIN A MAJORITY OF THE
VOTE
Judith Best, THE CASE AGAINST DIRECT ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT: A DEFENSE OF THE
ELECTORAL COLLEGE, 1975, p.50-51.
The consent of the governed is a necessary condition in leadership selection, but that consent is not always
identical to the consent of the arithmetical majority of the voters. The people's choice is not necessarily the
majority-vote victor, if only because not all the people vote. And though we are making great strides to remedy
the situation, not all the people who wish to vote can. Moreover, the plurality winner is not even the first choice
of the majority of the voters. This is not to deny the legitimacy inherent in the majority principle, but only to
indicate that it is a device which, in practice, operates imperfectly, that at best we achieve an approximation of
the principle which theoretically requires decisions to be made by 50 percent plus one of all the members. The
implementation of the principle of majority rule in its absolute form is at the very least problematic, because it
runs afoul of other goals such as noncompulsory voting, and because it depends on the existence of conditions in
the actual or political world which do not always obtain, such as a high degree of consensus and an absence of
incompatible alternatives. The answer to doctrinaire proponents of the majority principle is as it has always
been: laws, including election laws, must be a compromise between wisdom and consent.
2.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE VICTORY FOR A 'MINORITY' CANDIDATE IS NOT UNFAIR -- IT IS THE
RULE OF THE GAME
Lawrence W. Reed, Mackinac Center for Public Policy, "Keep the Electoral College," IDEAS ON LIBERTY, 301, http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=3353, accessed 10-3-11.
Some say that it is inherently unfair for a candidate to win in the Electoral College and become president if
another candidate actually has more popular votes. It should be noted at the outset that it is extremely unlikely
this could ever happen when the popular vote margin is wide. A narrow margin in the popular vote -- narrow
enough to be wiped out with a few vote-rigging recounts -- cries out for a decisive conclusion, and that's what
the Electoral College offers. But whether the losing candidate's popular vote victory is large or small, the fact
that a win in the Electoral College is all that finally matters is not unfair. It's not unfair that little Rhode Island
gets just as many senators as does big California. It's not unfair that 34-year-olds can't become president or that a
simple majority in the Congress is insufficient to approve a treaty, convict an impeached president, or amend the
Constitution. Nor is it unfair that the winner of the World Series is the team that wins four games, not necessarily
the one that had the most hits. These are the rules of the game and in the case of the Electoral College, the rules
were originally written for some very good reasons.
3.
MINORITY PRESIDENTS ARE UNLIKELY -- 'SMALL SHIFT' CLAIMS ARE DISINGENUOUS
Judith Best, THE CASE AGAINST DIRECT ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT: A DEFENSE OF THE
ELECTORAL COLLEGE, 1975, p.74.
By proposing minor and imaginary shifts in the popular votes between the two leading candidates in fifteen close
elections, the critics suggest that the electoral-count system can easily and frequently produce a runner-up
President. Many elections have been characterized by highly significant shifts in voting patterns, but there are
reasons, political acts, behind these shifts, and their effects are not confined to an individual state or even to key
states. But in a close election, unless the proposed shifts are in fact limited to the key states, the reversal of the
electoral contest usually will not produce a runner-up President. In 1884, when the national popular-vote margin
between the two candidates was 0.2 percent, a shift of .05 percent in one state, New York, would have made
Blaine a runner-up President. Unless that seemingly minor shift was in fact limited to New York, Blaine would
have been a plurality President. It is highly unlikely that such shifts would be limited to fit the predictions of the
critics, as the election of 1884 demonstrates.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
127
NOVEMBER 2011
ELECTORAL COLLEGE SUPERIOR: ANSWERS TO:
"MINORITY CANDIDATE VICTORIES" cont'd
4.
SMALL SHIFT CLAIMS ARE WRONG -- DO NOT DE-JUSTIFY AN ELECTORAL COLLEGE
Judith Best, THE CASE AGAINST DIRECT ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT: A DEFENSE OF THE
ELECTORAL COLLEGE, 1975, p.79-80.
The shift-in-votes argument fails to prove that the electoral-count system can easily and frequently produce a
runner-up President or an electoral-college deadlock. It fails because it abstracts from political realities and
because in many cases it ignores the election laws. The present system can produce a runner-up President; but
the historical evidence indicates that it will do so only in a close election in which the plurality candidate's vote
is inefficiently distributed. Since the system penalizes candidates who rely on their popular strength in one-party
states to give them the popular plurality, the political parties attempt to broaden their candidates' appeal. This
unanticipated benefit is ignored by the critics.
5.
EVEN THE ELECTION OF A MINORITY PRESIDENT WOULD NOT HURT THE COUNTRY
Judith Best, THE CASE AGAINST DIRECT ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT: A DEFENSE OF THE
ELECTORAL COLLEGE, 1975, p.80.
There is a risk in our electoral-count system, and that risk is the possibility of a runner-up President. While the
evidence cited in this chapter would suggest that the plurality victor has little cause for concern because of the
tendency of the system to inflate his margin of victory in the electoral college, the possibility of a runner-up
President cannot be denied. The majority principle is in truth one of the basic tenets of our system, and we may
not lightly pass over the possibility of thwarting it. On the other hand, the majority principle is not the only
principle underlying our republic. There are other goals such as minority consent, two-partyism, pluralism, and
stability. There is the governmental structure as a whole, which manifestly is not in complete harmony with the
majority principle. There is the world of practical consequences. In practice, the system has not discriminated
against a durable and determined majority. When, as in 1824 and 1888, the plurality candidate was passed over,
the distortion was soon corrected. In 1828, Jackson was elected, and in 1892, Cleveland. And the system has
recruited distinguished men of exceptional caliber and ability. In 1876 and in 1916, when we came very close to
electing runner-up presidents, the major contestants were able and eminent men; the election of any of them
would not have been a major disaster for the Presidency.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
128
NOVEMBER 2011
ELECTORAL COLLEGE SUPERIOR: ANSWERS TO:
"NEAR MISSES/CLOSE CONTESTS"
1.
HISTORY PROVES THAT THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE GETS THE OUTCOME RIGHT WITH STRONG,
BUILT-IN TIMELINESS/CERTAINTY BENEFITS
Brendan Loy, attorney, "Count Every Vote -- All 538 of Them: A Pragmatic Defense of the Electoral College,"
3-30-08, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1014431, accessed 10-6-11.
Tying all this history together, what can the past two centuries teach us about how well the Electoral College
fulfills the purposes of presidential elections? They teach us that the Electoral College usually gets it
indisputably right, agreeing with the popular vote -- indeed, magnifying it -- in 39 of the 42 presidential elections
since the first true mass-participation election in 1840. They also teach us that the Electoral College has never
failed to fill the office in a timely fashion, despite a close call in 1876 caused by anomalies that were quickly
remedied, and that it has always succeeded in paving the way for an orderly and peaceful transfer of power,
without any major legitimacy or constitutional crises (at least since the reforms following the 1876 controversy).
Upon reflection it is clear that the Electoral College's long string of successes is not mere coincidence, but is the
result of structural features that promote stability and resilience, allowing the system to function acceptably, if
not always perfectly, even when under the severe strain that inevitably accompanies extremely close elections. In
particular, the system's built-in timetables tend to push any post-election disputes inexorably toward a timely
conclusion, with the various discrete stages of the process serving to prevent the sort of interminable delays that
could threaten to paralyze the country in a less rigidly structured system. The Electoral College also focuses and
narrows any disputes to individual states, preventing the frightful specter of nationwide recounts leading to
multi-jurisdictional courtroom chaos. Last but not least, the simple fact that, ultimately, the president is elected
by a majority of 538 voters, not a majority (or plurality) of 120 million or more, reduces the significance of the
error margin that is inherent in any measurement of the popular will.
2.
WOULD HAVE HAD FAR MORE CLOSE/CONTESTED ELECTIONS IF WE HAD RELIED ON DIRECT
VOTING
Lawrence W. Reed, Mackinac Center for Public Policy, "Keep the Electoral College," IDEAS ON LIBERTY, 301, http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=3353, accessed 10-3-11.
Should the Electoral College be abolished? Last year's presidential election raised the question once again but it
also answered it with an emphatic NO. The Framers of the Constitution knew precisely what they were doing
when they established the system for electing presidents, which is more than anyone can say about the people
who spent weeks last fall counting those celebrated "dimples" and "pregnant chads" in Florida. The 2000
election was the 53rd since George Washington was chosen in 1792. Even on the three previous occasions when
a split decision between the popular and electoral votes occurred, the Electoral College was the mechanism for a
decisive conclusion to an election and a certain transition to a final winner. If popular votes alone determined the
outcome, a dozen presidential elections would have been close enough for the result to be contested without end,
or at least without an end that most Americans could see as fair and honest. What dragged out the contest
between Bush and Gore were the partisan lawsuits and the tortuous methods employed to recount votes or
decipher voter "intent."
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
129
NOVEMBER 2011
ELECTORAL COLLEGE SUPERIOR: ANSWERS TO:
"NEAR MISSES/CLOSE CONTESTS" cont'd
3.
CAN FIX THE HOUSE ELECTION PROBLEMS WITHOUT DITCHING THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE
Judith Best, THE CASE AGAINST DIRECT ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT: A DEFENSE OF THE
ELECTORAL COLLEGE, 1975, p.83.
All the objections raised against the present contingency? election procedure are undermined by the fact that for
almost 150 years the presidential contests have been resolved in the general elections. Since its universal
adoption, the unit system has made electoral-vote majorities the rule. Thus contingency elections have been
unnecessary. Nevertheless, because a contingency election is possible and because there is widespread
agreement that the contingency procedure should be changed, there has been no shortage of proposed reforms.
Many defects of the present contingency procedure, including the injustice of giving each state one vote in the
House and of depriving a state of its vote when its delegation is tied, as well as the possibility of a President and
a Vice-President of different parties, can be corrected without resorting to radical electoral surgery.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
130
NOVEMBER 2011
ELECTORAL COLLEGE SUPERIOR: ANSWERS TO: "OUTDATED"
-
ELECTORAL COLLEGE SERVES ITS ORIGINAL PURPOSES DESPITE CHANGES IN OUR COUNTRY
Tara Ross, attorney, "The Electoral College: Enlightened Democracy," LEGAL MEMORANDUM n. 15,
Heritage Foundation, 11-1-04,
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2004/11/The-Electoral-College-Enlightened-Democracy, accessed
10-13-11.
Much has changed since 1787. The Founders could not have foreseen the rapid technological advancements,
massive federal bureaucracy, and increasingly populist attitudes that characterize American life today. Could it
be that the Electoral College, although once an ingenious solution to many 18th century problems, has today
become merely an anachronism -- and a potentially dangerous one at that? The Electoral College undoubtedly
operates in a different society from the one that existed in 1787. Yet the Electoral College has shown an amazing
ability to adapt to modern-day America. It may sometimes operate differently than expected, but it still serves
the political goals it was intended to serve. In truth, its operation in modern times may be even more valuable.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
131
NOVEMBER 2011
ELECTORAL COLLEGE SUPERIOR: ANSWERS TO: "TURNOUT CONCERNS"
-
TURNOUT SHOULD NOT BE A PRIMARY CONCERN, DIRECT ELECTION WOULD HAVE LITTLE
EFFECT
John Samples, Director, Center for Representative Government, Cato Institute, "A Critique of the National
Popular Vote Plan for Electing the President," POLICY ANALYSIS n. 622, 10-13-08,
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-622.pdf, accessed 10-4-11.
If all votes counted equally, so the argument implies, more people would feel their votes mattered and would
turn out on election day. Others have suggested that direct election would increase the incentives for a state to
increase turnout. It seems unlikely that switching to direct election would actually increase turnout. Several
experts on voting behavior have noted: We would expect voter participation among the most informed segments
of the electorate to respond positively to the popular election of the president. This effect is probably small if not
trivial. The most informed and attentive voters are already predisposed to vote. Replacing the Electoral College
with the popular election of the president is not likely to be perceived by inattentive and less informed voters and
will have only a trivial influence on the likelihood of voting among the most informed voters. Should increasing
voter turnout be an important goal of the nation? Current levels of turnout do not seriously bias election results;
the sample of voters reasonably well represents the partisan and ideological views of the entire population of
voters. Voting turnout is highly correlated to education which in turn is the best predictor of economic literacy.
As the economist Bryan Caplan discovered, increasing turnout to 100 percent would mean candidates "have to
compete for the affection of noticeably more biased voters than they do today." Even lesser increases would be
expected, all things being equal, to increase the number of biased (i.e. ill-informed) voters compared to the status
quo. Insofar as candidates follow the wishes of voters, increased turnout would mean worse (i.e. more irrational)
economic policies. Increasing voting turnout should not be a high priority for American policymakers and even
if it were, moving to direct election, perhaps especially in such a complicated way as NPV, would not bring out
more voters.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
132
NOVEMBER 2011
ELECTORAL COLLEGE SUPERIOR: ANSWERS TO:
"VOTE EQUALITY CONCERNS"
1.
DIRECT ELECTION WOULD NOT INCREASE THE POWER OF ANY PARTICULAR VOTE
John Samples, Director, Center for Representative Government, Cato Institute, "A Critique of the National
Popular Vote Plan for Electing the President," POLICY ANALYSIS n. 622, 10-13-08,
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-622.pdf, accessed 10-4-11.
Two recent studies offer new insights about the power of voters and states under the electoral college and under
the direct vote. Jonathan Katz, Andrew Gelman, and Gary King examined whether the relative power of a vote
under the electoral college and a direct vote system. Looking at presidential elections since 1960, they found
minimal difference between the two systems in the estimated average probability of a voter being decisive. The
method of voting did not affect the actual power of voters in these presidential elections.
2.
"ONE PERSON ONE VOTE" HAS NEVER BEEN THE BASIS FOR OUR FORM OF GOVERNMENT
John Samples, Center for Representative Government, Cato Institute, "In Defense of the Electoral College,"
CATO.ORG, 11-10-2K, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4451, accessed 10-11-11.
What about the democratic principle of one person, one vote? Isn't that principle essential to our form of
government? The Founders' handiwork says otherwise. Neither the Senate, nor the Supreme Court, nor the
president is elected on the basis of one person, one vote. That's why a state like Montana, with 883,000 residents,
gets the same number of Senators as California, with 33 million people. Consistency would require that if we
abolish the Electoral College, we rid ourselves of the Senate as well. Are we ready to do that? The filtering of
the popular will through the Electoral College is an affirmation, rather than a betrayal, of the American republic.
Doing away with the Electoral College would breach our fidelity to the spirit of the Constitution, a document
expressly written to thwart the excesses of majoritarianism. Nonetheless, such fidelity will strike some as blind
adherence to the past.
3.
WE ALREADY CONDUCT DIRECT ELECTIONS -- WE JUST DO IT AT THE STATE LEVEL
Tara Ross, attorney, "The Electoral College: Enlightened Democracy," LEGAL MEMORANDUM n. 15,
Heritage Foundation, 11-1-04,
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2004/11/The-Electoral-College-Enlightened-Democracy, accessed
10-13-11.
As a purely statistical matter, perhaps this assessment is accurate. However, the odds of any one voter providing
the "tipping point" in an election are still exceedingly small. Further, any individual disadvantage for those who
reside in small states is outweighed by the larger advantage given to the state as a whole. In sum, the nation
conducts democratic, popular elections -- but they are conducted at the state level, rather than the national level.
Professor Charles R. Kesler of Claremont McKenna College explains: "In truth, the issue is democracy with
federalism (the Electoral College) versus democracy without federalism (a national popular vote). Either is
democratic. Only the Electoral College preserves federalism, moderates ideological differences, and promotes
national consensus in our choice of a chief executive."
4.
VOTER EQUALITY ARGUMENT DOESN'T DE-JUSTIFY THE COLLEGE -- TOO NARROW A VIEW OF
EQUALITY
Judith Best, THE CASE AGAINST DIRECT ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT: A DEFENSE OF THE
ELECTORAL COLLEGE, 1975, p.208-209.
In the final analysis the voter-inequality argument fails because its perspective on equality is too narrow and
apolitical. Even giving each voter an absolutely equally weighted vote for the President would not ensure
absolute voter equality, for the Presidency is but one of the power centers in the nation. Nor can absolute
individual voter equality be equated with political equality, because such an equation disregards the intensity of
preferences, the effects of noncompulsory voting, the fact of group organization, and the necessity to build
coalitions in a pluralistic nation.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
133
NOVEMBER 2011
ELECTORAL COLLEGE SUPERIOR: ANSWERS TO:
"VOTE EQUALITY CONCERNS" cont'd
5.
VOTES ARE NOT 'WASTED' UNDER THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE -- THEY ARE SIMPLY CAST FOR
THE LOSING CANDIDATE
Tara Ross, attorney, "The Electoral College: Enlightened Democracy," LEGAL MEMORANDUM n. 15,
Heritage Foundation, 11-1-04,
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2004/11/The-Electoral-College-Enlightened-Democracy, accessed
10-13-11.
The Benefits of Federalism. Critics of the Electoral College allege that the country's presidential election process
does more to trample the rights of individuals than to protect federalism. In this context, they often cite the
"winner-take-all" method employed by most states, claiming that it causes the votes of some individuals to be
"wasted." As this argument goes, a Texan who voted for Al Gore in the 2000 election wasted his vote because
George W. Bush was awarded the state's entire slate of electors under the winner-take-all method. Gore did not
win so much as one electoral vote from Texas, despite winning nearly 2.5 million of that state's popular votes
during the election. In a direct popular election, critics note, these votes would not have been "wasted" -- they
could have instead been included in the final national tally for Gore. Such arguments, however, are a bit
disingenuous. These votes were not wasted. They were simply cast on the losing side of a popular vote within
the state. If the 2000 election had been conducted based on nationwide popular vote totals only, would people
claim that any vote for George W. Bush was "wasted" because Al Gore won the popular vote? Of course not.
The votes for Bush were cast in an effort to win. In the event of a loss, they would simply have been votes for
the losing candidate -- just as in any other election (such as an election for Governor or Senator).
6.
VOTE EQUALITY SHOULD NOT GUIDE OUR POLITICAL DECISION-MAKING
Rachel Alexander, attorney, "Don't Get Rid of the Electoral College," ENTER STAGE RIGHT, 10-10-11,
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1011/1011ec.htm, accessed 10-13-11.
Determining who would make the best candidate for the most important office in the country is not necessarily
something that needs to be equally weighted among every person. In fact, in the past, several states did not have
a popular vote for president, but allowed the state legislatures to choose the electors. The Constitution does not
prescribe how the president is elected, other than leaving it up to the state legislatures to determine how to select
the electors. Ensuring one vote per person does not require ensuring one vote per issue or topic. We elect people
to various political offices all the time, who then select other people for additional political positions based on
criteria they select, not based on additional votes from the rest of us. This is no different.
7.
WE ARE A REPUBLIC, NOT A DIRECT DEMOCRACY -- SHOULD NOT ENDORSE PURE
MAJORITARIAN RULE
John Samples, Director, Center for Representative Government, Cato Institute, Testimony before the
Pennsylvania House Committee on Intergovernmental Affairs, 10-18-07,
http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-js-10182007.html, accessed 10-3-11.
First, there are questions of legitimacy. The Oxford English Dictionary defines legitimate as "conformable to law
or rule; sanctioned or authorized by law or right; lawful; proper." Article V of the U.S. Constitution provides a
procedure for amending the fundamental law. The supporters of NPV concede that their proposal seeks to
circumvent the amendment process in the basic law of the United States. One might wonder why anyone should
consent to the election of a president who has come to power through illegitimate means. Second, the NPV plan
teaches that majorities should have what they want whatever the costs to other values. But the United States is a
republic, not a democracy under unlimited majority rule.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
134
NOVEMBER 2011
ELECTORAL COLLEGE SUPERIOR: ANSWERS TO:
"VOTE EQUALITY CONCERNS" cont'd
8.
DIRECT ELECTIONS ALREADY EXIST WITHIN EACH STATE FOR THE PRESIDENCY
George F. Will, "Don't Mess with the Electoral College," NATIONAL POST, 10-7-11,
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/10/07/george-f-will-dont-mess-with-the-electoral-college/, accessed
10-13-11.
Supporters of the compact say they favour direct popular election of presidents. But that exists -- within each
state. The Framers, not being simple, did not subordinate all values to simple majority rule. The electoral vote
system shapes the character of presidential majorities, making it unlikely they will be geographically or
ideologically narrow. The Framers wanted rule by certain kinds of majorities -- ones suited to moderate,
consensual governance of a heterogeneous, continental nation with myriad regional and other diversities.