The Electoral College

Electoral College

The direct election of the President was a cause that I supported in the past. Then I heard a high school student explain the genius of the founding fathers’ paradigm for government. To review, the Constitution specifies a tripartite system of government that contains both separation and division of powers. There are three separate divisions, and three distinct methods for choosing the participants. We have a Legislative branch elected by the general population. The House and Senate share, though to a different degree, the distinction of being chosen by the individual voters.

Second the Judicial branch is appointed by the Executive and approved by the Legislative. Notice the intertwining of elections processes without overlapping. Finally, the President and ultimately the Executive is chosen by the States through the electoral college. Thus we also have a check and balance system to ultimately control all three branches.

A popularly elected President, or one chosen by apportioned electoral votes reduces him to a one-man congress or prime minister of the population only without the “no confidence” circuit breaker. (See below.)

The legislature is apportioned roughly by the division of interests in the individual states. Even the Senate can be “split” if a particular state has evenly divided interests. (Note that parties have usurped the role of interests, but in most cases, they are responsive to their “base” and quickly come into line when they stray.)

The States choose the President on the basis of their specific needs and convictions. So to be elected, the President must appeal to a majority of the States. The “division” of our society that is represented is the individual States. In this manner individuals, the government itself, and the states are all equally represented and involved in the checks and balances. One branch does not overwhelm the other two.

These electoral votes are traditionally voted by State on a winner take all basis. Each State submits its choice for President and they are tallied at the Electoral College to determine the next President.

Apportioning votes is as silly as having the Supreme Court Justices vote a percentage. Take, for instance, a situation where one Justice voted 30% in favor of a position and 70% against and two others voted 51% for and 49% against. This would have been a 2 to 1 decision in favor of the side. But if the percentages are summed, it is a 132 to 168 decision against.

The Supreme Court presents a decision based on the majority. The Senate, often with advice from their House colleagues, confirms the Judiciary. Likewise, the states have a united voice in the final decision for the executive.

Actually reporting the accumulated total votes for the President is both worthless and misleading. It has contributed to the popular myth that the people elect the President. It is as useless as reporting the total number of votes cast for the Republican and Democratic members of the House of Representatives. We do not know, nor care how many total votes the parties received. The count of the representatives is what is important.

So the Constitution has crafted a marvelous division and separation of powers. It is not an whimsical fantasy of the founding fathers. It is a functional, utilitarian, and extremely successful model for governance that has not been improved upon for over 2 centuries. And no other form of government has even approached the success and stability that this structure has afforded to the United States of America.

The real genius of this Constitutional system is the President. He (or she) is elected by the States. The States have proportional strength so representation is roughly apportioned, but not exclusively, on size of their population. Compare this to a prime minister who merely represents the majority of the legislative branch. He is not independent nor able to restrain the legislative body. We need only observe Canada, Great Britain, and even Israel to see the drawbacks and impotence built into this system. The no confidence vote effectively reduces him or her to a pawn of the legislative branch.
.
Dividing electoral votes proportionally is merely a thinly veiled attempt to make an end run around the concept of State selection of the Executive.  If proportionality is so sacred, why not make the Congressmen and Senators vote for issues on a proportional basis predicated on their percentage backing in their electoral district?

The check and balance system is complete and functional. We only tend to “muck things up” when we arbitrarily change one aspect without considering the whole entity. This is called “systems analysis.”  No one in his right mind would install 24 inch wheels on the back of his car to make it go fast and 13 inch wheels on the front to save money because they are cheaper. (Unless you are building a drag racer, which is not too functional on Briley Parkway.)

Changes in one part of the car affect other aspects and must be carefully, and thoughtfully  considered. The Founding Fathers crafted an impressive edifice for governing our country. Let’s be very careful of tipping it in any direction.