April 18, 2023
History has proven that it is impossible to create the “perfect” form of government, seeing as the values of security and safety often feud with those of inalienable rights and popular sovereignty. One would think that direct democracy, in which the people decide on legislation and have an immediate say in the law, would be an ideal form of government. However, as influential figures during the beginnings of the United States began to realize after immersing themselves in the philosophy of the past (including the works of Greek philosopher Aristotle) this “ideal” form of government presented some issues. Majority and minority tyranny arise when either group pursues their own interests while excluding the other, hindering the principles of democracy due to the inevitable influence of corruption. By adopting a representative democracy, however, we can retain the aspects of democracy–popular sovereignty, fundamental freedoms, and free elections–but instead vote for representatives in government who represent our interests.
Within this system of government, the Electoral College is utilized every four years to elect the president. The Electoral College was established as a compromise between a direct election by the people and a vote in Congress. Each state is allowed the number of electors equal to their representatives in the House and Senate, plus three for Washington D.C., resulting in 538 electors. At least 270 votes are needed to win the presidential election. When the people vote for president, they actually vote for their state’s electors, who are chosen by the political parties in that state through varied procedures.1
Many factors played into the decision to implement this system, one of which is the fact that the Framers of the Constitution did not trust that citizens were educated enough on matters of voting, presidential candidates, and government affairs. Considering the historical context, this system made some sense, because there was a lack of extensive media sources and public awareness of issues at that time. The Framers also advocated for this system to avoid the more populous states from having more power and controlling the country, which could result in tyranny by the majority–the candidate with the support of those few populous states may not properly represent the interests of the rest of the country. Through the Electoral College, the whole country could have a say in who became president, which aligned with the Framers’ vision of representative democracy.
However, this is only an illusion. The Electoral College process allows for the political parties in the legislature of each state to determine who can truly vote in the presidential election in a roundabout way that does not allow us to directly elect our leaders. There are, in fact, many pitfalls to the current system of electing the president that ultimately hinder the values of a representative democracy. According to the Pew Research Center, 63% of Americans believe the Electoral College should be changed,2 suggesting a lack of public support for the current method of electing the president. A system that does not give the voters enough influence in determining their leader can cause voter apathy. Since only a few states ultimately determine the election, candidates limit their activities to those regions which will actually affect the outcome.
Not only has this method of electing the president inadequately represented the entire country, but it has fueled the growth and ineradicable establishment of a two-party system in the United States that continues to stifle the voices of the people and polarize the nation. In James Madison’s Federalist Paper No. 10, he advocates for a republic buttressed by the preeminence of pluralism and the encouragement of many factions (e.g., political parties) so that “you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other.”3 A representative democracy is meant to allow different groups of people with distinct interests and views to thrive and work together to determine who will run the government and best represent all of their interests. However, the current system, bolstered by the adoption of the Electoral College, allows for the two primary political parties, Republican and Democratic, to dominate, absorb third parties and issues into their platforms, and stifle opposition.
With prejudiced origins, the Electoral College has continued to dilute the voices of Black voters, especially in southern states, allowing for what the Brennan Center for Justice calls a “structural racial entitlement program” to foster. As the Constitution was drafted, the racist Three-Fifths Compromise was established in response to demands from southern states; it delineated that every three out of five slaves would be counted in the census that determined a state’s population for representation in the House of Representatives. This system ultimately influenced the Electoral College’s distribution of electors and allowed states dependent on racist institutions, like slavery, to gain more influence in government. From that point on, the presidency was determined based on the adoption of the Three-Fifths Compromise, which was certainly not a truly representative addition to the Constitution. Since then, even when the clause was removed, a history of disenfranchisement ensued, bolstered by the Electoral College.4 Ultimately, the negative aspects of the Electoral College indicate a need for change.
One proposed alternative is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact—a middle ground between amending the Constitution so that citizens directly elect the president, and retaining the Electoral College as is. Through this Compact, “signatory states agree that they will appoint their presidential electors in accordance with the national popular vote rather than their own state electorate’s vote. [It] does not go into effect, however, until a sufficient number of states comprising a majority of the Electoral College sign on to the Compact.”5 There are certainly pros to this system, including the fact that it allows the people’s voices in states that are part of the compact to truly be heard, which aligns with the values of a representative democracy. It also fits into the framework of the Constitution’s vague clause on how electors will be selected by each state. The Compact avoids the need to pass an amendment, which would be incredibly difficult since the two parties in power both benefit from the Electoral College. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is a compromise that has gained support from fifteen states, as well as Washington D.C., and could continue to grow in support as more states consider the benefits of joining.
Nevertheless, there are numerous disadvantages to the Compact, including the fact that it will face extensive litigation if it goes into effect, and will possibly be considered unconstitutional. There are many practicalities that must be considered if this method were to be adopted, including the recount process, questions of legitimacy, and the complications that would arise through Congressional reapportionment, the addition of U.S. territories (e.g., Puerto Rico) as new states, and more. Although the Compact could adjust to these changing needs of the country, it has also highlighted the partisan divide, with Democratic-leaning states favoring its implementation while Republican-leaning states have demonstrated major opposition. If this Compact system were in place and if a Democratic candidate supported by the member states were to win, it would receive extensive backlash and be viewed as an invalid attempt to prevent a Republican candidate from winning the election.6 Ultimately, if the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact were to be implemented, it would probably not last for long and may prove futile.
But why not try? Most citizens are disappointed with the Electoral College and want change, and according to the values of a representative democracy, popular sovereignty is fundamental. History is a series of trials and errors, and even the Framers of the Constitution knew it was not a perfect system. They may have immersed themselves in the governments of the past, but there have been developments in the United States that they could not have foreseen. The nation has grown, and the current system cannot accommodate for the level of change that has occurred. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact could prove to be a step toward gaining support for an amendment to the Constitution, which could base elections directly on the popular vote. Currently, there is not enough support in government for that change, but if we were to implement the Compact, it could be possible in the future as the issue gained more national attention. Inaction can be more destructive than efforts directed toward progress, and the push toward change may instill an unprecedented level of involvement and curiosity in voters regarding the election process and government in general. The fact remains that the two-party system currently makes any efforts to abolish the Electoral College ineffectual, so beginning by signing on to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is the most practical step toward establishing a truly representative democracy.
Bibliography
“About the Electors.” National Archives and Records Administration. May 11, 2021. https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/electors#selection.
Codrington, Wilfred. “The Electoral College’s Racist Origins.” Brennan Center for Justice. February 16, 2023. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/electoral-colleges-racist-origins.
“Federalist Papers No. 10 (1787).” Bill of Rights Institute. Accessed April 18, 2023. https://billofrightsinstitute.org/primary-sources/federalist-no-10. Salzer, Rebecca, and Jocelyn Kiley.
“Majority of Americans Continue to Favor Moving Away from Electoral College.” Pew Research Center. January 4, 2023. https://www.pewresearch.org/facttank/2022/08/05/majority-of-americans-continue-to-favor-moving-away-from-electoral-college/.
Williams, Norman. “The Danger of the National Popular Vote Compact.” Harvard Law Review. March 13, 2019. https://harvardlawreview.org/blog/2019/03/the-danger-of-the-national-popular-votec
1 “About the Electors,” National Archives and Records Administration, May 11, 2021, https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/electors#selection.
2 Rebecca Salzer and Jocelyn Kiley, “Majority of Americans Continue to Favor Moving Away from Electoral College,” Pew Research Center, January 4, 2023, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/08/05/majority-ofamericans-continue-to-favor-moving-away-from-electoral-college/.
3 “Federalist Papers No. 10 (1787).” Bill of Rights Institute. Accessed April 18, 2023. https://billofrightsinstitute.org/primary-sources/federalist-no-10.
4 Wilfred Codrington, “The Electoral College’s Racist Origins,” Brennan Center for Justice, February 16, 2023, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/electoral-colleges-racist-origins
5 Norman Williams, “The Danger of the National Popular Vote Compact,” Harvard Law Review, March 13, 2019, https://harvardlawreview.org/blog/2019/03/the-danger-of-the-national-popular-vote-compact/).
6 Williams, “The Danger of the National Popular Vote Compact.”
