Better Election System: Popular Vote or Electoral College?

Recommend (3) Comments (0)

Presidential candidates must build a national coalition of voters before they can be elected; thus, moderation and compromise among Americans have become important ingredients in presidential campaigns. Additionally, the winner-take-all system employed by most states has strengthened the two-party system, making it hard for third parties to achieve more than a minimal base of power.

Some see this trend toward moderation and a two-party system as a liability. Perhaps voters identify with a third party more than they identify with one of the two major parties. The two-party system, however, has a definite benefit: Hand in hand with the Electoral College, it tends to prevent the rise to power of extremist groups and radical minorities.

Today, a vote for a third-party candidate is often said to be “wasted.” In a direct popular election, however, everything changes. Because a vote for Ross Perot or Ralph Nader would no longer be “wasted,” the number of presidential candidates would increase drastically. Elections would feature as many as five, six, or ten presidential candidates. The need for moderation and compromise would be de-emphasized because the objective has changed: Candidates need only earn the bare plurality of votes needed to guarantee a spot in the run-off. Such a goal can most easily be achieved by catering to one group (imagine pro-life or anti-war voters) that can be motivated to come to the polls in droves. In such a world, extremist third-party candidates need fewer votes to sway an election or to earn a spot in a run-off. Making matters worse, the increased number of candidates would ensure lower vote totals per candidate and an increased likelihood that two or more candidates will have close totals. Recounts, lawsuits, and run-offs would proliferate.

(As a side note, these problems would be exacerbated if the recent National Popular Vote plan is adopted. The proposal seeks to eliminate the Electoral College without the bother of a formal constitutional amendment. Because bill proponents can’t enforce run-offs in states that have not approved the legislation, their plan awards the presidency to a mere plurality winner, even if that plurality is a very small one.)

Direct popular election proponents may sound reasonable when they argue for election of the President by a “majority” of the people. In reality, however, a President elected by the majority of citizens will rarely be achievable, except in an idyllic world. A majority, after all, will never agree on their ideal candidate. Instead, political parties, election disputes, and run-offs will proliferate, and Presidents will essentially be elected by the initial twenty or twenty-five percent of voters who got them into the run-off.

Given the general inability to obtain majority consensus, the Electoral College provides the country with the next best alternative. Electing Presidents by states’ votes, rather than individuals’ votes enables Americans to identify a good compromise candidate for the majority of voters. The Electoral College requires moderation, compromise, and coalition-building from any candidate before he can be successful. Direct elections and a system of run-offs discourage such behavior.