28 A S the late Rodney Danger- field might say, the Electoral College just don’t get no respect. Polls show that most Americans, given the opportunity, would cashier it tomorrow in favor of so-called direct election. That they’d live to regret their decision only reminds us of H. L. Mencken’s definition of democracy: a form of government in which the people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. What the people would get by choosing direct election is the dis- integration of the state-based two-party system; the rise of numerous factional parties based on region, class, ideology, or cult of personality; radicalized public opinion, frequent runoff elections, wide- spread electoral fraud, and centralized control of the electoral process; and, ultimately, unstable national government that veers between incompetence and tyrannical caprice. And that’s only a par- tial list. Dissatisfaction with the electoral-vote system has been a staple of populist rhetoric ever since presidential elections became fully democratized in the 1820s. More than 700 constitutional amend- ments have been introduced to change the system—by far the greatest number on any subject—and although reform pre- scriptions have varied greatly in detail, their common assumption has always been that our electoral rules prevent the true voice of the people from being heard. securing limited government and equal rights for all. The presidential election system helps to form reasonable majorities through the interaction of its three distinguishing attributes: the distribution and apportion- ment of electoral votes in accordance with the federal principle; the requirement that the winner garner a majority of electoral votes; and the custom (followed by 48 of 50 states) of awarding all of a state’s elec- toral votes to the popular-vote victor within that state. Working together, these features link the presidency to the federal system, discourage third parties, and induce moderation on the part of candi- dates and interest groups alike. No candi- date can win without a broad national coalition, assembled state by state yet compelled to transcend narrow geograph- ic, economic, and social interests. Reformers tend to assume that the mode of the presidential election can be changed without affecting anything else. Not so. As Sen. John F. Kennedy argued in the 1950s, by changing the method of the presidential election, you change not only the presi- dency but the entire political solar system of which it is an integral part. The presi- dency is at once the apex of our constitu- tional structure and the grand prize of the party system. Our method of selecting a president is the linchpin that holds both together. Capturing the presidency is the principal raison d’être of our political parties, whose structure, thanks to the electoral-vote system, mirrors the unique- ly federal structure of the Constitution. This means that two-party competition is the norm; in a country of America’s size and diversity, that is no small virtue. With (for the most part) only two parties in contention, the major candidates are But what is the “true voice” of the peo- ple? Public sentiment can be expressed and measured in any number of ways, but not all are conducive to securing rights. If ascertaining the consent of the people were only a matter of counting heads until you got to 50 percent plus one, we could dispense with most of the distinctive features of the Constitution—not only electoral votes, but also federalism, the separation of powers, bicameralism, and staggered elections. All of these devices depart from simple majoritarianism, and for good reason: Men do not suddenly become angels when they acquire the right to vote; an electoral majority can be just as tyrannical as autocratic kings or corrupt oligarchs. The Founders believed that while the selfish proclivities of human nature could not be eliminated, their baleful effects could be mitigated by a properly designed constitutional structure. Although the Constitution recognizes no other source of authority than the people, it takes pains to shape and channel popular consent in very particular ways. Thomas Jefferson per- fectly captured the Framers’ intent in his First Inaugural Address: “All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority pos- sess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate which would be oppression.” By reasonable majorities, Jefferson meant those that would reflect popular sentiment but, by the very manner of their composition, would be unable or unlikely to suppress the rights and inter- ests of those in the minority. Accordingly, the Constitution understands elections not as ends in themselves, but as a means of N ATIONAL R EVIEW /N OVEMBER 8, 2004 CAMPAIGN 2004 The Old (Electoral) College Cheer MICHAEL M. UHLMANN Why we have it; why we need it ROBERT KING/GETTY Mr. Uhlmann teaches politics and policy at the Claremont Graduate University. Tallahassee, Fla., December 2000
Transcript
28
AS the late Rodney Danger-field might say, the ElectoralCollege just don’t get norespect. Polls show that most
Americans, given the opportunity, wouldcashier it tomorrow in favor of so-calleddirect election. That they’d live to regrettheir decision only reminds us of H. L.Mencken’s definition of democracy: aform of government in which the peopleknow what they want, and deserve to getit good and hard. What the people wouldget by choosing direct election is the dis-integration of the state-based two-partysystem; the rise of numerous factionalparties based on region, class, ideology,or cult of personality; radicalized publicopinion, frequent runoff elections, wide-spread electoral fraud, and centralizedcontrol of the electoral process; and,ultimately, unstable national governmentthat veers between incompetence andtyrannical caprice. And that’s only a par-tial list.
Dissatisfaction with the electoral-votesystem has been a staple of populistrhetoric ever since presidential electionsbecame fully democratized in the 1820s.More than 700 constitutional amend-ments have been introduced to change thesystem—by far the greatest number onany subject—and although reform pre-scriptions have varied greatly in detail,their common assumption has alwaysbeen that our electoral rules prevent thetrue voice of the people from being heard.
securing limited government and equalrights for all.
The presidential election system helpsto form reasonable majorities through theinteraction of its three distinguishingattributes: the distribution and apportion-ment of electoral votes in accordance withthe federal principle; the requirement thatthe winner garner a majority of electoralvotes; and the custom (followed by 48 of50 states) of awarding all of a state’s elec-toral votes to the popular-vote victorwithin that state. Working together, thesefeatures link the presidency to the federalsystem, discourage third parties, andinduce moderation on the part of candi-dates and interest groups alike. No candi-date can win without a broad nationalcoalition, assembled state by state yetcompelled to transcend narrow geograph-ic, economic, and social interests.
Reformers tend to assume that the modeof the presidential election can be changedwithout affecting anything else. Not so. AsSen. John F. Kennedy argued in the 1950s,by changing the method of the presidentialelection, you change not only the presi-
dency but the entire political solar systemof which it is an integral part. The presi-dency is at once the apex of our constitu-tional structure and the grand prize of theparty system. Our method of selecting apresident is the linchpin that holds bothtogether. Capturing the presidency is theprincipal raison d’être of our politicalparties, whose structure, thanks to theelectoral-vote system, mirrors the unique-ly federal structure of the Constitution.This means that two-party competition isthe norm; in a country of America’s sizeand diversity, that is no small virtue.
With (for the most part) only two partiesin contention, the major candidates are
But what is the “true voice” of the peo-ple? Public sentiment can be expressedand measured in any number of ways, butnot all are conducive to securing rights. Ifascertaining the consent of the peoplewere only a matter of counting heads untilyou got to 50 percent plus one, we coulddispense with most of the distinctivefeatures of the Constitution—not onlyelectoral votes, but also federalism, theseparation of powers, bicameralism, andstaggered elections. All of these devicesdepart from simple majoritarianism, andfor good reason: Men do not suddenlybecome angels when they acquire the rightto vote; an electoral majority can be just astyrannical as autocratic kings or corruptoligarchs.
The Founders believed that while theselfish proclivities of human nature couldnot be eliminated, their baleful effectscould be mitigated by a properly designedconstitutional structure. Although theConstitution recognizes no other source ofauthority than the people, it takes pains toshape and channel popular consent in veryparticular ways. Thomas Jefferson per-
fectly captured the Framers’ intent in hisFirst Inaugural Address: “All, too, willbear in mind this sacred principle, thatthough the will of the majority is in allcases to prevail, that will to be rightfulmust be reasonable; that the minority pos-sess their equal rights, which equal lawmust protect, and to violate which wouldbe oppression.” By reasonable majorities,Jefferson meant those that would reflectpopular sentiment but, by the very mannerof their composition, would be unable orunlikely to suppress the rights and inter-ests of those in the minority. Accordingly,the Constitution understands elections notas ends in themselves, but as a means of
N A T I O N A L R E V I E W / N O V E M B E R 8 , 2 0 0 4
CAMPAIGN 2004
The Old(Electoral)CollegeCheer
M I C H A E L M . U H L M A N N
Why we have it; why we need it
RO
BE
RT
KIN
G/G
ETT
Y
Mr. Uhlmann teaches politics and policyat the Claremont Graduate University.
Tallahassee, Fla., December 2000
3col.qxp 10/19/2004 8:23 PM Page 28
29N A T I O N A L R E V I E W / N O V E M B E R 8 , 2 0 0 4
enthusiasms. A House that rolled over forMcCain-Feingold, which enjoyed onlymild public support, will not likely opposethe clamor for direct election. As fortoday’s Senate, one would be hard pressedto identify a band of constitutional stal-warts comparable to those who coura-geously resisted popular currents in 1970.The next few years, in short, may testwhether our nation has the patience or wis-dom to preserve the delicate balances ofour constitutional solar system.
Proponents of direct election indictthose delicate balances for being “unde-mocratic.” That is true only in the mostsuperficial sense. If the Electoral Collegeis undemocratic, so are federalism, theUnited States Senate, and the procedurefor constitutional amendment. So is bi-cameralism and, for that matter, the sepa-ration of powers, which among otherthings authorizes an unelected judiciary.These constitutional devices were oncewidely understood to be the very heart andsoul of the effort to form reasonablemajorities. If all you care about is theachievement of mathematical equality inpresidential elections, and if to achievethat goal you’re willing to eliminate thestates’ role in presidential elections, whatother “undemocratic” features of theConstitution are you also willing todestroy? And when you’re done hackingyour way through the Constitution, whatguarantee can you give that your math-ematically equal majorities can be re-strained? How will you constrain theambitions of presidents who claim to bethe only authentic voice of the people?
The current system teaches us that thecharacter of a majority is more importantthan its size alone. Americans ought tocare about whether the winner’s support isspread across a broad geographic areaand a wide spectrum of interests. That iswhat enables presidents to govern moreeffectively—and what encourages them togovern more justly than they would if theirmajority were gathered from, say, anaggregation of heavy population centers.By ensuring that the winner’s majorityreflects the diversity of our uniquely fed-erated republic, the current system alsoassures his opposition that it will not haveto fear for its life, liberty, or property.Direct election can provide no such assur-ance and may, in fact, guarantee just theopposite.
forced to appeal to most of the same vot-ers. This drives them both toward the cen-ter, moderates their campaign rhetoric, andhelps the winner to govern more effective-ly once in office. Many factional inter-ests, for their part, are under a reciprocalinducement to buy insurance with bothsides, meaning the compromises neces-sary for successful rule will be made priorto and not after the election. Moreover, bymaking the states the principal electoralbattlegrounds, the current system tends toinsulate the nation against the effects oflocal voting fraud. All in all, the currentsystem forces the ambitions of presidentialcandidates into the same constitutionalmold that defines and tempers Americanpolitical life as a whole. It thereby preventsthe presidency from becoming a poten-tially dangerous tutelary force separateand apart from the rest of the Consti-tution’s structure.
These and other salutary consequenceswould disappear under direct election,whose deceptive simplicities mask itstruly radical character. If President Bushwins the 2004 electoral vote without apopular-vote plurality, you can be certainthat the enactment of direct election willbecome a principal mission of the Dem-ocrats. And it may well become theirmantra even if John Kerry wins. We cameperilously close to enacting direct electionfollowing the 1968 contest, when GeorgeWallace’s third-party candidacy shatteredthe New Deal coalition of big-city ma-chines and the one-party South. Fearingthe long-run effects of Republican compe-tition in the New South, Democrats tried tochange the rules to their advantage. Theywill do so again as soon as the opportunityseems propitious, which it will if thisyear’s election resembles 2000’s.
In 1969, as President Nixon ditheredand eventually ducked, direct electionpassed the House by a sizeable constitu-tional majority—including many Repub-licans who ought to have known better.But for a small and determined group ofconservative Democratic and Republicansenators who filibustered it to death, directelection would have been presented tothe states in an atmosphere that greatlyfavored ratification. Sensible heads mayprevail in today’s Republican-controlledHouse, but don’t count on it: On matters ofelectoral reform especially, congressmenhave little stomach for resisting populist
Choose from thousands of titles.For every booklover on a budget.Hardcover books starting at $2.95.Politics, Biography, History, PersonalFinance, Sports–67 subject areas.
Edward R. Hamilton, Bookseller597 Oak, Falls Village CT 06031-5005
BooksShop America’s biggest catalogselection, and save up to 80%!
www.erhbooks.com/fxg
Bargain
Free Catalog:1-800-677-3483
•
•
“Hating America treats fairly,and exhaustively, an issue thatwill challenge America for years athome and abroad.” —Charlotte Observer
3At bookstores everywhere.www.oup.com/us
GVR.100504
"In this comprehensive and compelling yet disturbinganalysis, Barry and Judith Colp Rubin delve deepinto American history to uncover the roots of an omnipresent global phenomenon."—Miami Herald$29.95
