in defense of the electoral college

Recently I've seen and heard a lot of hate directed at the Electoral College. We all know why, so I won't belabor that point. I have other points to belabor. I'm coming out here to support the EC.

But first, I should make some disclosures. Too often people's views on the matter are colored by their particular partisan loyalties -- It's not the Trump fans complaining about the EC, and it's not the Clinton fans supporting it. It's not so much that people are dishonest; they're human. Anyway, that being what it is, people are likely to want to know my loyalties so they can factor that into their reaction to what I have to say.

This year, I preferred Clinton to Trump, though I felt that both were egregiously bad choices. Living in a deep blue state I had the luxury of writing in Evan McMullin. If I lived in a purple state I would have held my nose and voted for Clinton. Back in 2000, the last time the EC split from the popular vote, I voted for Gore. Stepping back from these two instances, I have been an eligible voter for nine presidential elections -- dating back to 1984. In that time, I have voted for the Republican candidate six times and the Democratic candidate once. I have opted for a write-in vote twice.

Now that I've said that feel free to take what I have to say as seriously or unseriously as you like.

First of all, I should note that people are mistaken when they say that, since Clinton won the popular vote she would have won the presidency if not for the EC. That's essentially the myth of the inevitable double. On steroids. The campaigns would have been run differently and voters would have acted differently if victory was achieved by winning the popular vote. I should also note that any change in (or abolition of) the EC is prospective only. You don't change the rules after the game is played. So a change won't prevent President Trump.

So, why do I like the EC, being that it is undemocratic?

Well, I won't deny that there's appeal in having the Presidency determined by the popular vote. It's simple, it's easy to understand. And it is, democratic. Of course, so is two wolves and a goat voting on what's for dinner. More on that later.

But determining the presidency by popular vote ignores the essential nature of how this country was formed. The states are not supposed to be simple administrative units serving one central government. They are supposed to be separate semi-independent states. The federal government is a product of their mutual agreement, and supposed to serve them. On that note, I point out that into the 19th century states fought wars against each other over borders. And, no, I'm not talking about the Civil War. I realize that that structure is somewhat outdated, and the reality is that we are one nation. But I have a strong preference for decentralized government, and keeping the EC as is is part of that.

With that in mind, I like the current concept. States each get their votes, and when I vote I am voting on how I want my state to vote.

Scrap the EC with a constitutional amendment?
In terms of the alternatives, let's start with the most obvious possibility -- simply doing away with the EC and going by popular vote. Not gonna happen since it requires a constitutional amendment which would require a bunch of states signing on to a scheme that lessens their power and influence. And I'm glad that it won't happen. Aside from the points I already made, there's the fact that the EC limits the effectiveness of shenanigans that any state tries to pull. Concerned because you think that southern states are trying to disenfranchise minorities? Concerned because you think that California makes it easy for noncitizens to vote? Concerned that Virginia's governor is trying to increase Democratic turnout by using an executive order to pardon 200,000 felons? Concerned that people are voting multiple times, or in the names of dead people?  You can take heart that the damage done by any instance of fraud is contained.

In addition, there's something to be said for the notion that winning requires you to build broad support that isn't limited to a small geographic region. I understand the argument that people matter more than land, and if an area has fewer people it should get less say. But does it really make sense to have the entire makeup of our government determined by the large population centers on the coasts? With little knowledge of or concern for the needs of the rest of the country, they could pass laws that make life in the rural areas impossible -- effectively turning the rural areas into communities of serfs, beholden to the coastal elites. Remember what I said about two wolves and a lamb? This is where that comes in.

One can argue that the reverse is true, since the rural areas have an influence out of proportion to their population. But you can't realistically argue that the rural areas control the levers of government the way the coasts could if we had no EC. The fact is that, even though less populous states get more votes per person in the EC (and, in fact, in the Senate), there is greater power in having a large voting block in Congress.

In addition, the popular vote would bring with it all kinds of logistical nightmares. Remember the chaos in Florida in 2000? Imagine a nationwide recount in a close election.

Other possibilities
Since a constitutional amendment isn't going to happen, the ECF is here to stay. But there have been various ideas proposed to either eliminate or mitigate its effect.

Chief among them is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, (NPVIC), which is essentially an end-run around the EC. In signing on to the NPVIC, a state agrees to assign all of its electors to the winner of the national popular vote -- once enough states have signed on that they represent a majority of the EC. In that way, the popular vote would decide the election.

This would be worse than abolishing the EC by constitutional amendment (except, of course, for the fact that it could be undone more easily than a constitutional amendment. If we were to eliminate the EC with a  constitutional amendment, at least there would be a prayer of having that amendment (or a law create uniformity in voting rules and procedures. That way every state would have the same eligibility requirements, the same extent of early voting rules. With the NPVIC, that won't happen.

The Constitution grants states broad latitude in deciding how to pick their electors. And since it didn't envision a popular vote system, it doesn't really lay out rules for how the elections should be conducted by the states (except for piecemeal amendments that forbid discrimination). A system that awards the presidency to the winner of the popular vote coupled with no standardized rules has the potential to become a race to the lowest common denominator. How does a state increase its clout? By increasing the number of votes it contains. Lower the voting age! Why should the franchise be limited to those 18 and older? Let 17-year-olds vote. And 16-year-olds. hell, let anyone vote once they're out of the womb. And why limit the franchise to citizens? Noncitizens are part of the fabric of society, so let them vote.

The fact is that reasonable arguments can be made for expanding the franchise. And if some other state wants to expand it, that's really not my business under the current system. But I don't want them to expand it because they are racing with other states to increase their clout. And with the popular vote determining the winner, it is my business. That gets us back to the fact that currently shenanigans can only affect the state in which they are committed.

And going the other way? Recall that the states aren't required to let their residents vote for the electors. Any state can determine its electors by vote of the legislature. The NPVIC essentially forecloses that possibility. Some may argue that that's a good thing, but I disagree. As I noted before, I prefer to give states as wide a latitude as possible in setting their own procedures.

Another problem is that the issue of a national recounts is complicated. Currently, many (all? -- I don't know) of the states have rules as to what triggers an automatic recount. With the NPVIC, states would have to rethink all that. And it would be difficult to get them to all rethink it in the same way.

Of course, there are other ways that states could play with their electoral votes. Nebraska and Maine don't have a winner take all system. In those states, there is one elector for each congressional district, picked on the basis of the vote in that district, plus two votes that go to the winner of the statewide vote. I can see the appeal of that, but I don't like it. Again, I prefer the idea that the state gives its support to whomever the voters of the state support. But I live in new York. If Maine and Nebraska want to do things differently, then that's their business.

I have a similar opinion about the idea of apportioning the state's electoral votes pro-rata, based on the popular vote in the state. It also would weaken the purple states' influence; mobbing the meter a little would change one electoral vote instead of the state's full complement. But this could create more recount problems. I don't know what the different rules are regarding automatic recounts. But if there are specific thresholds that trigger a recount (e.g., the state will automatically conduct a manual recount if the result is closer than 1%), would recounts be triggered if the vote is within the threshold of having one electoral vote flip? If that were the case, then California, having 55 electoral votes, would always have to have a recount under a 1% standard.

In conclusion
Keep the electoral college. It preserves some semblance of the states' independent nature, and it saves us from potential logistical nightmares.

NOTE: I made a correction from the way this originally appeared. I changed the word "bad" to "good" in the sixth paragraph under "Other Possibilities." I meant "good." I really did.