8-19-04

The Electoral College Safeguards

Dear Editor,

As the election cycle of 2004 continues to unfold, I am sure there will be more talk about why the US goes by an Electoral College system of electing a president. In 2000 George W. Bush won the presidency with the Electoral College without a simple majority of the vote. The pollster, Zogby, has recently raised the possibility that in the 2004 election Kerry may do the same thing. Why not just go by a simple majority? Does not the majority rule? That of course is the question and also the problem.

The founding Fathers of this country distrusted both the rule of the King, and the rule of the simple majority. Simple being defined as just a little over half. That may come as a surprise to some, but it is true and also very wise. Ask yourself the simple question, how far do you trust the majority vote in your own house? The truth is that a simple majority of the people can be wrong. The founding Fathers decided that it was not safe to entirely trust a simple majority vote. They went on to put safeguards in place for our presidential elections and throughout much of our political system. The safeguards are to protect the little guy from abuse by the big guy who might seek to exercise his will by a simple majority vote. The Electoral College is one of the safeguards in restraining the abuses of the majority.

Let us look at a very simple example of our own making, and I think things can appear much clearer. Suppose we have three states electing their president. Two of them are big states with 45,000 people each, and then there is a small state with 10,000 people, making for a total of 100,000 people. To be elected president by simple majority rule we need only 50,001 votes. Let us say that the issues are hot in the campaign and the big states are on opposite sides. At the center is the small state that will bear the burnt of whatever decision is made. Since the feelings are strong big state number one has 80% of its people on candidate two’s side. That makes for 36,000 votes. The small state of course disagrees strongly with candidate two’s position, seeing it as doing them great harm. Their vote goes 90% for candidate one, and 10% for candidate two. That would be 9000 and 1000 votes respectably. Candidate two now has 37,000 votes, he needs 13,001 more votes to win. That is he needs only 29% of big state number two’s votes to win. Do you think he will get it? It is very likely, since big state two does not care as strongly about the harm being done to the small state, as what the small state does itself. With the simple majority vote the small state has been stripped of its power to influence matters concerning it’s own needs, and has to depend on big state number two’s sympathy. Again, do you think it will get it? Maybe and maybe not. Small state has likely been trumped and there is nothing it can do about it.

Let us then make an Electoral College illustration out of the example above. We will assign one electoral vote for each 1000 people. That gives each big state 45 votes, and the small state 10 votes. The rule is that whichever candidate wins the state gets all the electoral votes of that state. He or she will need 51 electoral votes to win the presidency. So big state number one gives 80% of its vote to candidate two. It makes no difference; candidate number two gets only 45 electoral votes. Big state number two gives 58% of its vote to candidate number one, giving 42% of its vote to candidate number two. This is more than enough to win using the simple majority vote, as only 29% of the vote is needed in the above illustration. Under the electoral system though, neither candidate has won. They both have 45 electoral votes. It is left up to the small state with its 10 electoral votes to decide the election. Hence, the small state has maintained control over its needs, and the candidates will have to visit and listen to the views of the small state. The Electoral College system is indeed a stroke of political brilliance.

What does this mean in practical terms? A good real life example would be the vote taken the other week in Venezuela. With a 58% of the vote their President Hugo Chavez is preparing to centralize power, exert control over the courts, local police and the nation’s broadcast stations. (AP story – 8-17-04) That means he is planning to take over, things like free speech, any local police force, and install himself with more dictatorial powers. All of this is happening with only a 58% vote. Do you think it is right that 42% of Venezuelan’s should have their country taken over because a little over half of the people think it should be so? In our above Electoral College example, prospective president number two was stopped even though he had close to 56% of the vote. Counting for the local fraud in Venezuela, President Hugo and our example are not that far apart. There is simply no moral halo that hangs over a simple majority vote. It can be very wrong.

Throughout our political system these types of checks are placed. In the House side of Congress things are pretty much straight up and down majority vote. On the other side, in the Senate, it is another matter. Each state regardless of size has two senators. I do not know what the numbers are, but in theory it could be possible that 30-40% of the represented population could both make and hold up legislation. They also have the ‘closure rule’ in the Senate where 41 senators can hold up any legislation by refusing to break a filibuster. This rule is used by both conservatives and liberals, democrats and republicans. In theory it is possible that a lower number than 30% of the represented population could be keeping legislation from passing.

We ought to be thankful for the safeguards that have been put in our political system. They are there for a purpose, to protect the helpless, and to insure that all are heard, even the little man. God truly has blessed America.

Jerry Eicher

Farmville