Electoral College Reform

Challenges and Possibilities

Gary Bugh

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781317145264
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Diritto
• Subtopic: Giurisprudenza

The United States has not updated the Electoral College system since the Twelfth Amendment was ratified in 1804, despite public opinion polls showing a majority of Americans are in favor of changing or outright abolishing it. So why hasn't the United States reformed this system? Electoral College Reform brings together new essays examining all aspects of this crucial debate, including the reasons for reform, the issues surrounding a constitutional amendment, the effect of the Electoral College on political campaigns and the possibilities for extra-constitutional avenues to change. The authors consider both the Federalists' vision of balanced representation and a more democratic and equality-based ideal. These competing frameworks, perhaps more than any other factor, account for centuries of American indecision on this key issue. By offering an unprecedented and carefully researched analysis of an always controversial subject, this volume explores the potential for changing a system that many contend is long overdue.

PART I
Thinking About Electoral College Reform

Introduction:
Approaching Electoral College Reform

Gary E. Bugh

Despite the voluminous literature on the presidential electoral system, not many works focus on its modification or elimination—that is to say, on its reform. Other than a few books coauthored by Lawrence Longley more than twenty years ago, which in part addressed the history and fate of amendment efforts in Congress, scholarship on Electoral College reform is rare. Moreover, many people writing about the system of electors have an agenda, arguing either for or against its change. For example, some currently promote an interstate compact, in which states would agree to cast their electoral votes for the candidate winning the national popular vote. Even many of the well-known Electoral College texts favor one proposal over others. While a few of the authors in Electoral College Reform: Challenges and Possibilities defend specific changes, overall we seek greater understanding of the topic. In so doing, we have produced original and insightful research on Electoral College reform.

In the first part of the book, Thinking about Electoral College Reform, the authors contemplate theoretical concerns related to electoral change. My exploration in Chapter 1 of recent congressional deliberations over amending the Electoral College illustrates the importance that both reform supporters and opponents place on the principle of representation. Making use of primary sources, Michael Rogers’ research in Chapter 2 of the Federalists’ and Anti-Federalists’ views at the time of the U.S. founding challenges some conventional assumptions about the initial defense of the proposed system of electors. In a comprehensive review of the Electoral College in Chapter 3, from its adoption at the Constitutional Convention to recent reform proposals, presidential scholar Michael Korzi highlights the importance of democracy and federalism to electoral revision. Overall, the first three chapters indicate that America’s vibrant political thought is integral to any meaningful discussion about Electoral College reform.

Without denying that change is possible, the contributors of Part II, Challenges of Electoral College Reform, examine hurdles that confront electoral reform. Jeffrey Stonecash’s argument in Chapter 4 that the presidential election system already provides diverse representation suggests that calls for democratic reform are futile. One of the surprises from my investigation in Chapter 5 of proposed electoral reform amendments is that members of Congress have introduced few of these plans over the last three decades. In his analysis of mid-twentieth century congressional chamber votes on proposed amendments, Mark McKenzie in Chapter 6 holds that Congress’s representational structure is not conducive to achieving electoral reform and that the public is unlikely to place enough pressure on congressional members to overcome this barrier. In Chapter 7, Brian Gaines reviews recent state actions regarding the “National Popular Vote Interstate Compact,” arguing that support for the proposal is far from democratic. James Melcher’s evaluation in Chapter 8 of the adoption and preservation of the district plan in both Maine and Nebraska reveals difficulties that reformers in other states should not ignore. Taking a look at different electoral systems in sixty countries and hundreds of elections, Baumgartner and Case in Chapter 9 defend a lesson that may also apply to electoral reform in the United States. The diversity of potential obstacles that these authors address suggests the complexity of challenges facing the pursuit of electoral reform.

In the last part of the book, Possibilities of Electoral College Reform, the authors explore unique reasons and proposals for electoral reform, without ignoring that success would be difficult. Robert Alexander in Chapter 10 presents new research on presidential electors and finds that they are fairly susceptible to outside pressure. In his analysis of presidential state visits, Brendan Doherty in Chapter 11 concludes that our ever-campaigning presidents—due in no small part to the Electoral College—have developed intriguing patterns of travel. Robert Bennett in Chapter 12 offers an alternative way of approaching reform in his defense of both the “National Popular Vote Interstate Compact” and nationwide agreement to keep presidential electors faithful. No stranger to Electoral College scholarship, Paul Schumaker in Chapter 13 expands on his earlier work and argues for a specific proposal and a distinctive strategy that may win congressional passage. Burdett Loomis in the last chapter emphasizes that some conditions are better today than forty years ago for facilitating endorsement of an electoral amendment, and he defends a moderate plan that many representatives might find attractive. The scholars of these five chapters raise previously under-studied reasons to change the presidential electoral system and new ideas that could result in electoral reform.

By taking an analytical approach, which includes consideration of political principles and contemporary politics, the book presents key difficulties and prospects of Electoral College reform. The contributors’ innovative analyses also convey the enduring interest in the subject. In exploring Electoral College reform, the book challenges the reader to consider if democratization of the process is possible, if not desirable. We also invite the reader to consider further evaluation of the U.S. system of representative democracy.

Chapter 1
Representation in Congressional Efforts to Amend the Presidential Election System

Gary E. Bugh

Discussions about changing the Electoral College often involve the concept of representation. Representation is important to American political thought, relating as it does to other political principles like popular sovereignty, federalism, and legitimacy.1 It was central to those debating the proposed system of electors in the eighteenth century, and it has mattered to members of Congress who have since deliberated about reforming the constitutional system. This is not to say that appeals to political principles account for congressional actions on proposed electoral amendments. However, investigating congressional members’ discussions of proposed electoral plans draws out their use of representation, which in turn demonstrates the importance of the concept to Electoral College reform.

Representation in America

Traditional and Popular Views of Politics

Representation is not a straightforward concept in the United States because it has different meanings. Some American political theorists hold that traditional and popular views frame U.S. political principles and issues, including representation.2 In general, the traditional perspective embraces indirect selection of representatives for the sake of order and stability. It was deeply embedded in the Federalists’ defense of the proposed U.S. Constitution of 1787, as well as in many of the structures that the Constitution established after its ratification in 1789. The popular view of politics, however, embraces citizens ruling more directly, such as by electing all public officials. The Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, and expansion of political equality since the 1960s reflect the popular perspective. When it comes to Electoral College reform, the traditional and popular views of politics may be fairly evident, although they may go by different names. For instance, Michael Rogers in Chapter 2 provides a detailed analysis of the eighteenth-century constitutional debates between Federalists and Anti-Federalists, and Michael Korzi in Chapter 3 discusses Electoral College reform in reference to federalism and democracy. There are other political discourses in the United States.3 However, as some scholars have argued, participants in constitutional amendment deliberations tend to appeal to these two perspectives when discussing principles.4 This section reviews traditional and popular understandings of representation.

Traditional Representation

Traditional representation involves indirect selection of representatives and government decision making that takes into account diverse interests. According to the Federalists, writing in favor of the proposed U.S. Constitution during 1787–1788, institutions such as the bicameral Congress, indirectly elected Senate, and state-based system of presidential electors would provide mixed yet balanced representation of states and the nation.5 As James Madison argued in Federalist Paper, No. 39, this form of representation would be “a very compound source ... presenting at least as many federal as national features.”6

How public officials who were not directly elected by the people would adequately if not accurately represent state and national interests was for the Federalists by no means a simple dynamic. To begin with, they held that constitutional structures would keep a faction—particularly the majority of the people—from taking over the government. This scenario had taken place within several states under the Articles of Confederation. The indirect selection of members of Congress, presidential electors, the president, and even the Supreme Court would prevent any one faction from dominating the national government. The Federalists held that the autonomous design of each state’s electoral meeting, which Hamilton called “a special body of representatives,” would keep “factions,” along with “cabal, intrigue, and corruption,” from determining the president.7

Additionally, the Federalists argued that because the proposed institutions had so few available positions, they would attract the well-educated and politically astute as congressional representatives and presidential electors. In turn, these wise and devoted few would deliberate, taking into account a variety of interests, ultimately making the best decisions for states and the nation. The Federalists therefore held that electors’ choice of president would reflect “the sense of the people.”8 For example, James Madison argued that, as with Congress, presidential elector meetings would provide “that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose.”9 The presidential electoral process would also guarantee state representation because each state would have at least three electors, control over how to choose these electors, and administration of its elector gathering.10

Since then, the understanding of traditional representation for some includes not just states and the nation, but also something that the Federalists regarded as factional: political parties.11 Indeed, the unit rule, alternatively known as the “general ticket” and “winner-take-all” method, which all states...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title page
• Series page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• List of Figures
• List of Tables
• Notes on Contributors
• Foreword by George C. Edwards III
• Acknowledgments
• Part I Thinking About Electoral College Reform
• Part II Challenges of Electoral College Reform
• Part III Possibilities of Electoral College Reform
• Appendix A Proposed Amendments for Electoral College Reform Plans, 1899–2010
• Appendix B Apportionment of Electoral College Votes, 1901–2010
• Bibliography
• Index