February 12, 2001
The case for the Electoral College - THE COMMENTARY
By Joseph Planta
VANCOUVER -- The outfall from the recent American election has raised many questions regarding the Electoral College and democracy itself. Those considered ‘enemies’ of America must have looked at the election debacle and thought to themselves, “Gee America’s pretty weak, ain’t it?” Al Gore, upon conceding the election, said that one shouldn’t view it as a sign of American weakness. “The strength of American democracy is shown most clearly through the difficulties it can over come,” and perhaps Gore has a point. Smug Canadians saw their own election campaign tidied up long before Americans could call George W. Bush President-elect. But Canadians were smug for the wrong reasons. Sure, it is good we have laws preventing the major networks from broadcasting results other than those from Elections Canada on election night, but I must support the Electoral College and the result derived from such a process.
Even though Al Gore won the popular vote, he did not receive a majority of Electoral College votes. No one really gave a damn about the college until this election, but the hues and cries that it is not representative of the popular American choice must take their lumps. One that lives with Canada’s electoral system is confounded by the degree of malcontent with the College system in America. Armed with a paper put out by the Federal Election Commission (entitulated Essays in Elections 1: The Electoral College,) there are arguments for and against the College. I tend to buy the arguments for, rather than against, as those against are shallow reasons that if used in argument would be put in place to repair the rifts caused by the November debacle and nothing else. A mere Band-Aid.
An argument against the College is that there is “the possibility of electing a minority president.” Now President George W. Bush received a mere 271 votes of the College’s 538. That represents a mere 50% plus one. That’s fair as Gore received the other 266, Bush wins the contest in a winner take all situation. A technicality, but fruit of a mechanism that would enhance the rights of minority states, so as not to have heavily populated states the mandate to dictate their wishes on the rest of the country. Bill Clinton did not have that problem in the 1996 election. Some footwork I’ve done figures out he won an overwhelming majority of electoral votes, yet his popular vote totalled 49% only. Dole and Perot had 49% between them. A majority, I have been taught is 50% plus one, now Bill Clinton didn’t have a majority did he?
Now the College is merely a number of electors that vote according to the majority of their own states’ popular vote for President. Those that know the system, will excuse my explanation. The states themselves are assigned electors according to the number of Senators and Representatives they have in the Senate and House. All states have 2 Senators and the number of Representatives is derived from population. Thus a state such as Washington would have 11 electors in the College of 538, as they have 2 Senators and 9 Congressmen/women. Clearly favouritism within the College is apparent in California as they have 54 votes, because of their large population. The College would prevent California to direct it’s will on the entire nation, as it did in 2000. Florida came into contention, as their 25 electors were guideless as the popular votes separating Gore and Bush were too few. At the end a mere 500 or so votes gave the nation’s presidency to George W. It’s much like our own system that sees the BC NDP in government because they won more seats than the Liberals, yet the Liberals saw their popular vote considerably higher.
A reason for the College is the fact it gives the country strong representation for smaller states. No one state carries 270 electoral votes, the number needed to win, thus candidates are also prone to campaign in all states, rather than focus in on vote rich California or New York. As we saw in 2000 campaign, Gore campaigned hard in his own Tennessee and President Clinton’s Arkansas, which vote Democrat usually, he would have commanded the support of the people in a majority instance. Gore focused on California late in the campaign, he won it, but smaller states are defiantly vital in the grand scheme of things. (Arkansas and Tennessee fell to Bush.)
Questions regarding George W. Bush’s ability to unite the country are foolish. He commanded a majority of states, and I feel that’s enough of a majority. The States are all very different. If America were all the more singular, I would assume there be less than 50 states and perhaps 10 provinces?
The Electoral College has it’s flaws and I would hope that Congressional leaders and the new President himself would undertake reforms that would make the votes count and make democracy all the more easier to understand for the blue rinse set in Florida.
We could use the College in Canada. Ontario wouldn’t dictate their wishes on the rest of the country, and perhaps we’d have that much lamented of schemes -- democracy.
Questions and comments may be sent to: editor@thecommentary.ca
An archive of Joseph Planta's previous columns can be found by clicking HERE .