Direct Election, Not the Electoral College, Represents the Views, Values, and Interests of Voters
October 23, 2024
Our ongoing review of the origins and rationales that undergird the Electoral College reveals a central point that cannot be ignored. The disturbing vice of the Electoral College, as we have seen, is that it undermines our political system by providing presidential candidates with an incentive to visit competitive states, particularly large competitive states, at the expense of small states.
In a system providing for the direct election of the president, which would more effectively represent the views, interests, and values of voters across America – including the principle of political equality, which is grounded on the foundational one-person, one-vote doctrine – every vote would matter, and every vote could make a difference. A citizen’s vote in South Dakota would count as much as a citizen’s vote in a swing-state such as Georgia, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, or Michigan.
Under a direct election system that counts every vote, regardless of state geographic boundaries, presidential candidates would have incentive to court voters across the entire country instead of spending the bulk of their efforts in a handful of battleground states. Former Republican presidential candidates, including President Gerald Ford and Bob Dole, observed that a national popular vote would motivate candidates to pay attention to states and areas within states that are typically ignored because they are considered safe for one party or the other. Under the direct election system, voters in small, as well as large, states would receive greater attention.
Selection of the president based on a direct election in which every vote counts toward a grand national tally, moreover, would provide incentive for candidates to urge supporters throughout America to go to the polls. Citizen participation would increase as voters realize their votes can make a difference. Our civic culture would be improved because citizens would be talking about politics and key issues, discussing and debating the future of the nation, mindful of the impact of electoral politics on their own lives and of the impact they could have on electoral politics. Party-building efforts in the weaker, non-competitive states would increase once it is understood that their voters are not standing on a tiny island, far removed from the political process that selects the president.
Candidates, in turn, would have a stronger interest in clarifying their positions on issues, which they should be encouraged to do, as they vie for votes in areas and states long ignored. States, and areas within states, will become more competitive. At bottom, voter apathy and disenfranchisement, the scourge of a healthy, vibrant republic, would be diminished with the recognition that the republic can, indeed, be home to vigorous discussions that can sway votes and influence elections.
Contrary to assertions by advocates of the Electoral College, direct election of the president would not impair federalism. In fact, the drafters of the Constitution did not frame the Electoral College as a principle of federalism. No delegate in the Constitutional Convention referenced the Electoral College as an element of the federal system. The Electoral College was not created to serve or protect state interests. If it had been, the Framers would have required states to choose electors as agents of state officials. But delegates did not do that. Rather, the Electoral College was designed to place the presidency beyond the reach of state politicians. As such, the Electoral College has been justly characterized by the political scientist, Martin Diamond, as “an anti-states-rights device.”
As such, the Electoral College is neither a feature of federalism nor essential to its preservation. If it were abolished and replaced by direct election of the president, states would still have the same powers and duties that they currently have under the Constitution. Protection of federalism, central to our constitutional structure, is found in the quality of representation provided by members of the House and Senate and by state legislatures and governors, not in the framework of the Electoral College.
Scrutiny of the Electoral College reveals that it undercuts the essential republican principle of political equality and the fundamental premise of government based on the consent of people. Contrary to assertions, it doesn’t serve the interests of small states, which do not embody coherent, unified interests and communities. At this juncture in American history, citizens should reassess the desirability of retaining the Electoral College as our system for electing the president.
-David Adler