The election season has begun and once again the angry voices are shouting that we need to abolish the Electoral College and let mob, I mean, majority rule.  The shouts have been getting louder and justifiably so.  There have now been two elections in modern history where the candidate receiving the majority of the popular votes has lost the presidency due to the functionality of the Electoral College.  On the face of it, it makes perfect sense.  Why wouldn’t we want the president to be chosen by the majority of the people?  That is, after all, one of the defining characteristics of a democracy.

The election of the President was originally stated in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.  It states, “Each state shall appoint, in such a Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress:  but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.”  Which defines nothing other than how many electors there should be and who can serve as an elector.  There were no rules as to how they were supposed to function or vote.  So why did our founding fathers feel the need to include this clause at all?  Before we decide that we need to toss aside a Constitutionally mandated election process, it would seem we should at least understand why it was included in the first place.  Or maybe I should say, that I wanted to know the reasoning.

Now seems as good a time as any for me to point out that I have argued for years that the Electoral College has outlived its usefulness.  My argument stemmed only from the understanding that the reason it existed is that back in colonial times, it was not easy to educate everyone on the men running for office, casting or tallying ballots.  Today’s ease of communication and travel negated the need for representatives to cast ballots and elect the president of the country.  And while I still think that’s a valid argument, I’ve since learned that it is based on a flawed understanding.  One would have thought that my government professors would have pointed this out at the time.  I will give them a pass for the possibility that they just didn’t want to argue the point with me, as I was not the easiest student to have in a classroom.

Based on very basic research, from what I now understand there were two reasons that the Electoral College came into existence.  The primary reason was to create a buffer between the population and the presidency.  We have to remember that the reason for the Revolution was to escape what the colonists believed were tyrannical practices from the English monarchy.  Creating a buffer between the people and the office was designed to prevent a tyrant from unduly influencing the populace and taking control of the Presidency.  Lack of education of the masses would have fed that fear.  The idea behind selecting electors is that they would cast an educated vote and select the most qualified individual.  While this seems like an outdated concept, it does make a certain amount of sense.  Look at today’s political climate of using fear tactics and scaring people in order to garner votes.  While not quite in the same category as tyranny, it’s not completely different.

The secondary reason for the formation of the Electoral College was a compromise so that the smaller states had proportionately the same number of electors as they do representatives.  The article linked above shows a great example of how this version of representation comes as close to equalizing the states as is possible.  I highly recommend reading it, if you are so inclined.  The gist is that each elector represents about the same number of the population regardless of the size of the state.

In 1804, Amendment XII of the Constitution was passed which clearly defines the rules and functionality of the Electoral College.  It goes in to detail on who gets to vote, how the vote is to be taken, counted and reported.  It’s the process of how the College functions after the electors have been named by the states.  What it does not do is define how the electors are supposed to vote.  And this is where all of the misunderstanding surrounding the Electoral College stems.

The rationale behind the Electoral College and the process by which it functions are not what is causing the arguments in today’s elections.  In fact, one could reasonably argue that the reasons for the Electoral College still exist to a certain extent.  While we may no longer need a buffer between the people and the office, we can argue that the more important validation is the equalization of power between the states.  Which brings me back to the point that no where in Article I or Amendment XII of the Constitutions does it define how the electors votes are to be cast or divided.  And like all questions of who has the decision making power, we have to remember that the Constitution clearly states that any power not clearly defined by the Constitution automatically belongs to the individual states.  In other words, the problems with the Electoral College are the state mandated rules of how the electors vote.

And this is where I changed my mind regarding the Electoral College.  At no point does it state in the Constitution that states have to use a winner take all attitude regarding the way electoral votes are cast.  The voters within each state agreed to those rules.  Maine and Nebraska are the only two states that allocate votes by congressional district.  The remaining states all use the winner take all method.  This is where the problem truly lies.  And this is where the change needs to take place.  If the Electoral College was designed to be representative of the people, then it makes sense that there would be a proportionate way of splitting the electors’ votes.  We don’t need to fight for a Constitutional amendment to make changes to the election process.  We need to fight our state legislators to do the right thing.  Unfortunately it is in neither political party’s favor to back the legislation needed to make this type of change.  They like to rile up the electorate and point fingers at the Electoral College, but they don’t really want it to change.  Why should they, when it works in their favor for the most part?  More interesting is why the media and other Constitutional pundits haven’t pointed out the same thing.  I sure didn’t know that’s how the process worked and I’m sure I’m not alone in my ignorance.   We want fairness in our election process, then we need to demand that our respective states step up to the plate.

And why not just abolish the Electoral College?  Because we would be doing exactly the opposite of what our founding fathers were trying to accomplish.  The goal was to have a representative form of government that was fair to all citizens regardless of the size of the state they live in.  Were we to abolish this today, power wouldn’t be based on the size of the state but on whether you lived in an urban or rural community.  Citizens in the largest urban areas (because of their population size) would have an unfair power advantage over those living in the rural parts of the county.  That’s unacceptable to me and should be for everyone else because it implies that not all citizens are equal.  The Electoral College is not an antiquated tradition of the past, but is in fact another shining example of the greatness of our Constitution and the incredible foresight had by our founding fathers.

*  *  *  *

Another bit of interesting history gleaned from a Netflix documentary.  Recently a new documentary series titled “Losers” was released on Netflix.  Each episode is about an athlete or team considered to be a loser according to competitive standards.  The title alone was enough to capture my attention.

Torquay United FC is a soccer team in a small town in the U.K.  Without going into a ton of explanation, they played in the lowest tier of professional soccer.  These are teams where only the hometown fans follow them.  1987 was the first year that there was auto relegation, which in the soccer world means that if you are in the top 3, the team automatically moves into the next upper tier of competition and if you are in the bottom 3, a team runs the risk of being demoted to a lower tier.  This can severely affect a team’s ability to raise enough money to stay in existence.

In 1987, Torquay United was in the bottom of the bottom tier and it came down to the last match of the season.  Win or tie and they continue on to play another year.  Lose and they risk even existing as a team.  The fans, players and coaches all knew how important the game was to themselves and the town.  The first half did not go well.  And listening to some of the fans describe the situation is just laugh out loud funny.  They were ready to cap a series of losing seasons with the ultimate loss.

The second half started much the same way, until the police dog (who was on duty) took exception to the game play, ran onto the field and bit one of the hometown players.  Bit him hard enough that it eventually required 17 stitches.  It also resulted in 4 minutes of injury time that got tacked on to the end of the game.  And it was during that 4 minutes of time that the team came to life and scored the goals needed to tie the game and earn enough points to save their existence.  The fans went wild.  The dog became the town mascot and legend.  And the game was labeled as “The Great Escape.”  Best 30 minutes of documentary that I can’t stop watching – and not because of the sport, but because of the fans.  Wish they would do a series with more of these little nuggets of sports history.