On the Electoral College

Mark Greathouse

(9/2020) As I was driving across the vast expanse that is Texas on a recent vacation, I had occasion to especially notice the stark difference between folks in the open rural byways versus those in the crammed-together urban and even suburban areas. The residents were clearly quite different in their social, cultural, and economic needs and expressions. The ranches and shops of the little town of Bandera for example contrasted markedly with the skyscrapers and sprawling suburbs of San Antonio. It gave me pause to wonder whether tiny Bandera (pop. 900) had a big enough voice in the Texas legislature to not be subject to the considerably greater influence afforded to San Antonio (pop 1.6 million).

It doesn’t take a mental giant to figure that the much larger population of San Antonio holds considerable sway so far as Texas and Congressional elections. And if yard signs are any indicator, political differences are as wide as cultural.

I got me to thinking on a larger scale. Nationally, there is one representative from each of 435 Congressional districts and two senators from each of the 50 states. Wyoming has one representative in the U.S. Congress, while Texas with its larger population has 36. Each state has two senators. Why should Wyoming get the same Senate representation as Texas?

What’s good for Texas ought to be good for Wyoming…or should it? Why should Wyoming have less skin in the decision game just because its mostly rural? Its capital, Cheyenne, features a population of 59,000. Wyoming offers tourism, agriculture, energy, and mineral resources. Texas is…well, Texas is huge! It occurred to me that more than 60 million of what one 2016 candidate called "deplorables" live in more-sparsely-populated states like South Dakota, Wyoming, and Nebraska. Do their votes count as much as Texas or California?

We must look to history to remind us of the well-grounded logic of the authors of our Constitution that still stands today. The U.S. Constitution went into effect on March 4, 1789. Delegates from the 12 of the 13 member states of the Confederation met in Philadelphia for 2 years to hammer it out. That not-so-little matter of equal state representation in the government was a huge sticking point. I mean, Rhode Island was tiny compared to Virginia. How would they enable the smaller states to have an equal voice? How would everyone’s freedoms be assured?

Benjamin Franklin was reportedly asked by a Mrs. Powell upon completion of the vote on the Constitution, "Well, doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?" Franklin’s reply, "A republic, madam – if you can keep it." Think on that. They established a republic, a representative form of government with an elected president and a body of representatives of the people as distinguished from a pure democracy. They were fearful that a straight-out democracy could be every bit a dangerous as a monarchy. Delegates feared that smaller states would not have a meaningful voice in electing the President of the United States, as a flat-out popular election would throw the balance of power to larger states with large urban populations.

The delegates’ solution was "electors" proportioned per state populations. The number of electors is determined as the sum of a state’s senators plus its representatives. Thus today, there are 538 electors (435 + 100 + 3 = 538). (The District of Columbia gets three.) In the debate among the delegates, supporters argued that what became known as the Electoral College was essential to the broad regional voice of American federalism, the essence of a republic and guarantor of freedom. Opponents argued that it was antithetical to a democracy of one person, one vote. James Madison and Alexander Hamilton (yes, the one the Broadway musical is about) went to work devoting some of their Federalist Papers to the issue.

In Federalist No. 10, Madison argued against the undue influence of "an interested and overbearing majority" and "mischiefs of fashion" characteristic of a purely democratic system. Factions were seen as being driven by common impulses of passion or interest adverse to the rights of other citizens. Madison saw a republican government as countervailing against factions. In Federalist No. 39, Madison explained that the Constitution was designed to be a mix of state-based and population-based government. That is a critically important aspect. Hamilton laid out in Federalist No. 68 the advantages of an Electoral College, including avoiding a party-run legislature or permanent body subject to influence by foreigners. Hamilton also argued that no federal office holder could be an elector, this supposedly eliminated electors being beholden to any particular presidential candidate.

Initially, electors were chosen by state legislatures, but that shifted in the early 19th century to selection by popular election. The votes of the electors have mirrored the popular vote except in 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016. Notably, there was a resultant hue and cry in each case about abolishing the Electoral College so the "voice of the people" could be heard. In 2016, those sorts of protests were mostly heard from heavily-populated states with large politically liberal-leaning cities like San Francisco, Chicago, and New York City. No one was complaining in Cheyenne, Wyoming.

It’s not likely that the Electoral College will be eliminated any time soon. It would take a Constitutional amendment. Article V of the Constitution prescribes the two ways the Constitution can be amended. One requires ratification after two-thirds of the House and Senate approve of the proposal and send it to the states for a vote. Then, three-fourths of the states must affirm the proposed Amendment. The second method has never been used. It requires that a Constitutional Convention be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the states. It can propose as many amendments as it deems necessary, and those amendments must be approved by three-fourths of the states. So, if you don’t like the Electoral College, you’re unlikely to see it go away any time soon.

So, I’m sure Bandera, Texas will survive, as will Wyoming. I’m just as sure that "overbearing majorities" or "mischiefs of fashion" won’t have outsized influence. Our republic with all its inherent protections of our freedoms must prevail.

Read past edition of the Tumbleweeds

Read other articles by Mark Greathouse