Dec 17, 2016 5 min read

The Founding Fathers, like many of their peers in the 18th century, feared democracy. They feared that if the common people were given political power, they might not exercise it wisely, being subject to manipulation by unscrupulous leaders.

This fear was reflected in the system they devised for choosing the president. Instead of letting citizens vote for president, they created the Electoral College. The idea was that the electors who were to choose the president would represent the best minds of the states and were generally appointed by state legislatures. While many citizens of the country would be unable to know candidates from outside their region, the electors would have such knowledge and therefore make an informed, responsible choice. These electors were not party affiliated, because when the Constitution was written, there were no political parties.

But as Jacksonian democrats began to clamor for greater say for the “common man,” and states began allowing citizens to vote for president in the 1820s, electors lost their roles and the Electoral College became almost irrelevant. But because most states operated by a “winner take all” system of choosing electors, the Electoral College continues to have an impact because it makes votes in some states worth more than others. This was another reason for the creation of the Electoral College; the slave states feared direct democracy, because they feared that the North (with its larger electorate) would control the government and outlaw slavery, as many Northern states were doing at the state level.

In Federalist Paper No. 68, Alexander Hamilton suggested a more specific role for the Electoral College: “That the office of president will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” Critics of President-elect Donald Trump have seized on this to argue that because so many people think Trump is unfit to be president, the electors, known as “Hamilton” or “unfaithful” electors, have a duty to deny Trump the presidency. Hamilton would undoubtedly approve, but the probability of 37 electors, many of whom were selected as Trump’s electors (or at least Republican, not neutral electors, as the Founders envisioned), being “faithless” is not likely.

If the Electoral College fails to perform the function for which it was created, it should be abolished. And conservative Republicans who admire the “originalism” of the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia who fail to support this use of the Electoral College must recognize the inadequacy of their judicial philosophy, and not use adherence to it as a necessary qualification for the next Supreme Court justice.

Although the Electoral College no longer serves its historic function, supporters argue that it has a number of benefits. It forces campaigns to be geographically dispersed, creates a more unified country by exaggerating the presidential mandate and makes a nationwide recount unlikely. Critics argue that, twice in the last five elections, the Electoral College prevented the person most voters wanted to be president from assuming the office. They also argue that it artificially focuses campaigns on very few swing states, forcing them to ignore large swaths of the country that are not in play. New York, Texas and California alone make up more than 25 percent of the United States population, but are almost completely ignored except for fundraising, while swing states are inundated with candidates and events. Very small discrepancies in key states can change the results of the election, such as poorly-designed butterfly ballots in Palm Beach County, Florida in 2000, were enough to cost Al Gore the election.

Critics also point out that this is the only election in the country done this way – for instance, no states created electoral colleges to vote for governor. The exaggeration created by the Electoral College also encourages a president to believe they have more support than they actually do; Trump is claiming a mandate, when more 2.5 million more voters cast ballots for Clinton than Trump.

The Electoral College is based on an anachronistic view of the United States, and one that does not live up to the ideals of “all men are created equal.” The current system is archaic, and not infrequently prevents the most popular candidate from becoming president. There is a movement, called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, that is getting states to pass laws which direct their electors to vote for whichever candidate wins the popular vote. Currently, states represented by 165 electoral votes have passed such legislation. Unfortunately, because the Electoral College has helped Republican candidates who lost the popular vote become president, Republicans paint this as a partisan issue, but it could just as easily benefit Democrats.

Most Americans proudly claim to value democracy; electing the president by majority vote would let us live in one.

Kent James is a resident of East Washington.