Electing the President and Our Electoral College

           With the upcoming Presidential elections for 2016 process already starting to warm up with potential contenders, I thought it worthwhile to investigate the process of electing our President. It centers on the Electoral College.

Establishing how to elect the President was vigorously debated by the framers. During the Constitutional Convention, the Brearley Committee was created with representatives from each state to find a compromise to elect the President of the USA. This compromise resulted in establishing the Electoral College under Article II Section 1 in our Constitution. The Electoral College provided both a mix of popular vote and state elected officials. The 12^th Amendment was created to resolve contested elections by the House of Representatives. 

There have been several occasions where the Electoral College system was tested. They included one that I learned during my class on Civil War history with the 1876 election of Republican President Rutherford Hayes. There was a compromise made in the House that if the Republicans ( considered the Liberals at that time) got their man in the seat of the President, that they would pull troops out of the south which would essentially bring an end to Reconstruction. Our most recent Presidential election debacle was that of George Bush and Al Gore in 2000. We can all recall the “chads” and such in the media as Supreme Court heard two cases in relation to this election. The conservative justices on the court ruled that no recount in Florida’s ballot mess needed to occur. Gore won the popular vote, but Bush won the necessary electoral votes. As a result, Bush won the presidency and the fallout will be felt for generations.

There are several great reasons to keep the Electoral College intact. We watch in the media how the “battleground states” become a bevy of campaign activity in the get out the vote measures and the intense campaigning by the candidates takes on the national spotlight. The amount of attention certainly can help voters across the nation watch their candidates speak while the hosting states get to appreciate the flush of personal contact via the rallies and other campaign related activities. For those battleground states, the amounts of commerce generated and sweetheart deals that are negotiated represent a positive economic boom.

The Electoral College provides for better overall representation across the nation instead of favoring just one type of population such as the traditionally liberal highly populated urban areas or the traditionally conservative rural areas. This also creates a type of national cohesiveness because no one region feels left out of the process. Some do argue that the Electoral College gives more value to those rural state votes because of their small populations, but I would rather be an inclusive nation rather than a disenfranchising nation even it means including conservatives that clearly oppose my own ideology. The Electoral College also allows for easier re-counts in the contested areas instead of having to recount the entire nation.

The Electoral College also supports minority rights better by allowing them to flex their muscle in states that could affect the final outcome of their states election. We saw this in Nevada with the Latino vote and I am sure we will see them push Texas to a blue state as their populations swell. The idea that Republicans can continue to ignore the Latino issue of immigration is self-defeating as electoral votes swing to the Democrats and they will never be able to get a Republican President in office.

I believe that the Electoral College creates a stable two party system that is more centered and prevents the growth of more radical extremist parties that cater to their extremist bases. I can see how a multiparty system would create more fringe parties, but we are currently witnessing the Republican Party being dominated by the fringe right extremist wing. It is pulling the Democrat Party to the right as well, but I imagine it could be worse without the Electoral College. I believe using the popular vote would undermine the balance of powers between the states and federal governments. It could quite possibly destroy our federal system.

The ‘winner take all’ supports the perceived legitimacy that satisfies the American appetite for a clear winner. We understand this as our nation’s culture is passionate about sports and they do not debate that their team won by only a single point. It still makes their team the winner. Most Americans accept this, although conservative extremists have refused to accept President Obama’s election for a multitude of reasons, but none centering on the actual clarity of the significant majority election wins themselves. Some feel that their vote does not count when voting red in a blue state, but this does not discourage my friends from across the political field from voting at all. They just grumble a lot about it knowing that they are voting in local or state elections as well that do elect members of their parties.

As a nation, we are frustrated with our two party system because of the polarization that has occurred and the inability to deal with the nation’s problems. We deliberate on throwing all of the bums out as many are erroneously considering throwing the baby out with the bath water rather than taking the time to understand the root issues of our political mess. The electoral system gives balance and stability to our nation’s government. I, for one, wouldn't want it any other way.