TBO.com - TBO is Tampa Bay Online

Picking President By Popular Vote Would Invite Tumult And Division

ADVERTISEMENT

The Tampa Tribune

Published: June 28, 2008

It strikes some voters as peculiar, even wrong, that it is possible for a president to be elected with fewer total votes than the closest rival.

Under the Electoral College designed by the nation's founders, such an undemocratic outcome occasionally happens, but that doesn't make the system evil or even archaic.

Lots of people want change, which is why Florida Sen. Bill Nelson is calling for a constitutional amendment to elect the president by popular vote. His intentions are honorable, but there are several sound reasons, still valid today, to justify a less democratic system.

The founders gave these matters serious thought, as so should we before changing a system that has facilitated regular and peaceful changes in what has become the world's most powerful post.

What the Electoral College lacks in democracy it makes up for in fostering orderly campaigns, decisive outcomes and trustworthy ballot-counting.

Here's how it works: Voters in each state elect a slate of people, called electors, who meet in the state capitals to actually elect the president. In most states, including Florida, it's winner take all.

The practical result is that the candidates don't campaign very hard in states they are either sure to win or sure to lose. States in this category, like Massachusetts, see this as a failure of the system. Actually, it's a strength.

As we have pointed out before, partisan battles are most fierce in states where the parties are most equal and most capable of guarding against fraud. If electing the president were a straight popularity contest, every party leader at every level would have an incentive to get out the most votes possible. Those easiest to mislead would be fed the most lies.

Because of the electoral system, broad appeal is essential to success, not a strong geographic or ethnic base. Unlike in some countries where elections rip society apart, we Americans tend to reach the end of a campaign with respect for both major candidates.

Nelson makes a simple argument: "If the principle of one person, one vote is to mean anything, the candidate who wins a majority of the votes should win the presidency."

The principle does mean something important, but it doesn't and shouldn't mean everything.

The nation's founders knew that a majority of 51 is capable of stealing freedom from the other 49. That's why they set up a federal system with protections for citizens, their property, and their state governments that elections cannot undo. That's why little Wyoming and Vermont have the same number of senators as big Florida, Texas and California.

Nelson is right on a related issue. The presidential nominating process is a mess that badly needs reform. He suggests a system of six regional primaries, with each rotating going first. Congress could set this up without changing the Constitution.

And it is possible to make some reforms in how states award electoral votes without scrapping the safeguards set up by the founders. The largest states might be divided into two or more electoral regions. Maine and Nebraska already use a system for dividing their electoral vote.

But to simply count every ballot and inaugurate the candidate with the most votes would, as Alexander Hamilton warned, overly reward "talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity."

Share this:

Loading Comments...

Email Print

ADVERTISEMENT