Dr. Saman Shali

The United States presidential election process is a distinctive blend of democratic ideals and federalist principles embodied in the institution known as the Electoral College. The Electoral College is a distinctive feature of the United States presidential election system. Established by the U.S. Constitution in 1787, this system was designed as a compromise between electing the President by a vote in Congress and electing the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens. The Electoral College has been debated for centuries, with arguments for and against its continued use.

Historical Foundations and Purpose

The framers of the U.S. Constitution created the Electoral College to address several concerns. One of the primary reasons was the fear of "tyranny of the majority," where a purely popular vote might allow a candidate with only regional appeal to dominate national politics. The framers were also concerned about the lack of informed voting by the general populace, given the vast distances and limited communication of the 18th century. Additionally, the Electoral College was a compromise between the interests of large and small states, ensuring that smaller states retained some influence in the President's election, safeguarded against potential tyranny, and maintained the sovereignty of individual states within a federal framework.

Several proposals were considered:

1. Direct Popular Vote: Advocated by delegates like James Wilson, this method was dismissed due to concerns about the feasibility of informed voting across vast distances and the potential marginalization of smaller states.

2. Congressional Selection: Some suggested that Congress elect the President. However, this was rejected to maintain the separation of powers.

3. State Legislature Selection: Entrusting state legislatures with the choice was also considered but dismissed for similar reasons.

The resulting compromise was the Electoral College, which aimed to integrate popular input and a federalist structure.

Arguments in Favor of the Electoral College

Supporters of the Electoral College argue that it ensures a broader representation of the United States in presidential elections. By requiring candidates to win electoral votes across various states, the system encourages a more national campaign approach instead of focusing only on populous urban areas.

The Electoral College is also said to contribute to political stability by promoting a two-party system. It tends to marginalize third parties, which, while potentially reducing the diversity of political choices, also prevents the scenario of a fragmented electorate, leading to a weak or indecisive government.

Another argument is that the Electoral College reflects the federal nature of the United States, where states have significant power and autonomy. This system underscores the role of states as integral units in the political process, thus preserving the federal balance.

How the Electoral College Works

The Electoral College consists of 538 electors, corresponding to the total number of U.S. Senators (100), U.S. Representatives (435), and three electors allocated to Washington, D.C., as granted by the 23rd Amendment. Each state is allocated several electors equal to its total number of members in Congress.

When citizens vote in a presidential election, they are technically voting for a slate of electors chosen by their party who have pledged to support that party's candidate. Most states have a "winner-takes-all" system, where the candidate who wins the majority of the popular vote in that state receives all of the state's electoral votes. Maine and Nebraska are exceptions, using a proportional system to allocate their electors.

To win the presidency, a candidate must secure a majority of electoral votes—at least 270 out of 538.

If the Electoral College results in a 269-269 tie in the U.S. presidential election, the determination of the next President and vice president is provided for in the Twelfth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and involves Congress. The House of Representatives will vote for the President, with each state delegation casting one vote for each state's top three candidates, such as California, the largest state, tied with the smallest state, such as Wyoming. This situation occurred in 1800 and 1824.

The Senate will choose the vice president. Each senator casts a vote, and the candidate who receives a majority (at least 51 out of 100) wins.

• The Senate vote is between the top two vice presidential candidates with the most electoral votes.

• In the event of a tie in the Senate (50-50), the sitting vice president, the President of the Senate, will cast the tie-breaking vote.

Emergency Deadlines: Certain provisions apply if neither the House nor the Senate can decide by Inauguration Day (January 20). If the House of Representatives has not chosen a President by that time, the Vice President-elect shall assume the office of President until the House resolves the issue. Suppose neither a President nor a Vice President is chosen. In that case, the Speaker of the House shall temporarily become Acting President in accordance with the Presidential Succession Act.

The process emphasizes the balance between state representation (in the House) and equal representation in the Senate.

Criticisms of the Electoral College

Critics argue that the Electoral College is undemocratic, as it can result in a president who does not win the popular vote. This situation has occurred five times in U.S. history, most recently in the 2016 election, where Hilary Clinton won the popular vote while Donald Trump won the electoral College vote to become President. This discrepancy between the popular vote and the electoral outcome raises concerns about the system's legitimacy and whether it truly represents the people's will.

The winner-takes-all approach in most states is also criticized for rendering votes in "safe" states—those that reliably vote for one party or the other—essentially meaningless, leading to a lack of voter engagement in those areas. Instead, campaigns tend to focus on "swing states" where the outcome is uncertain, leading to a disproportionate influence of these states in determining the election.

Additionally, the Electoral College can exacerbate regional divides. A candidate who wins by large margins in a few states can lose the election if they fail to win enough states despite possibly having a substantial popular vote lead.

Proposals for Reform

In recent decades, debates over the Electoral College have intensified, especially following elections where the popular vote winner did not secure the presidency. Several reform proposals have emerged:

1. National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC): An agreement among states to award their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner once enough states join to guarantee a majority in the Electoral College. As of 2023, 15 states and D.C., totaling 196 electoral votes, have joined. This compact would only take effect if states totaling at least 270 electoral votes joined, ensuring the popular vote winner becomes the President.

2. Proportional Allocation: Instead of winner-takes-all, electoral votes could be apportioned based on the percentage of the popular vote within a state, as practiced by Maine and Nebraska.

3. Proposals for ReformAbolition: Some advocate for a constitutional amendment to eliminate the Electoral College in favor of direct popular elections.

However, reforms face significant hurdles. Constitutional amendments require substantial consensus, and smaller states may resist changes that could diminish their influence.

Conclusion

The Electoral College is a profoundly entrenched institution in the United States, embodying both the historical compromises of the Constitution and the ongoing tensions in American democracy. Its creation was a testament to the intricate balancing act of democratic ideals and federalist principles. While it has provided stability and continuity, the evolving political and demographic realities of the United States continue to challenge its relevance. While it has functioned as intended in many respects, its critics argue that it is increasingly out of step with modern democratic principles. The debate over its future reflects broader concerns about representation, federalism, and the evolving nature of American politics. Whether it will be reformed or retained in its current form remains a central question for future U.S. presidential elections.

Saman Shali has a Ph.D. in Science (1981) from the University of Sussex. Dr. Shali worked as an Assistant Researcher and Assistant Professor at the University of Sussex, King Saud University, and Pennsylvania State University. He is also a senior fellow at the Mediterranean Institute for Regional Studies.