In My God We Trust
"As Rep. Chet Edwards (D-TX) said in voting down the Chenoweth measure, 'Perhaps it is time for us in Congress to preach a little less and practice a little more.'"
Other Resources
Interested in discovering more about this topic? Explore these links ...
- The Electoral College by William Kimberling
- Electoral College Reform, August 1997
- LaHood Popular Vote Amendment (H.J.RES.23, February 4, 1999
- Leach Popular Vote Amendment (H.J.RES.113), October 12, 2000
- Durbin Popular Vote Amendment (S.J.RES. 56), November 1, 2000
- Federal Elections Review Commission Act (H.R.5631), November 14, 2000
- Would we be better off with a third political party? by Richard Winger
- BALLOT ACCESS: A Formidable Barrier to Fair Participation by Richard Winger
A Political Essay by Kevin I. Makice
November 19, 2000
For many supporters of emerging political parties, the 2000 Presidential
election ended on schedule. Ralph Nader easily defeated Pat Buchanan,
Harry Browne, et al in the battle of also-rans. No recount was
necessitated.
And so it will be until the landscape changes. The playing field laid out for the political game makes such consolation prizes the practical goal of any upstart campaign, to finish rather than to win. Hope for third party candidates is purposely omitted in the Presidential process through the campaign checks and ballot-access imbalances. Unbeknownst to them -- and most Americans -- the legal battle being waged in November 2000 by Al Gore and George Bush may be just the thing this country needs to spark some real reforms that will ultimately benefit third-party candidates most.
Tuning into the weeks of post-Election Day coverage offered by the major networks did more to educate the average American than a full semester of high school civics. The Electoral College, we have come to discover, is an antiquated system that denies the nation of a popular President. Even without a photo finish, past legislators have sought to reform or outright eliminate Electors in favor of old fashion majority rule. Three of the four attempts made in 2000 came during autumn.
Times Are A-Changin'
The same system under fire by populists today was under fire by our Founding Fathers as well. The debate of the day ranged wide from pure popular votes to government appointment before settling on a system that empowered the states themselves to cast weighted votes for the nation's leader. Over the past 200-plus years, the electoral college has been edited both formally (through legislation) and informally (through changes made in the selection of Electors by the political parties).
Obviously, the days of George Washington are radically different from the days of George Bush. We as a nation are secure in our democracy, no longer a radical experiment on the global scene. Generations of Americans have become better educated and experienced with elections. Our country has nearly quadrupled from 13 states to 50, reducing the impact a single one can have on a national election. The population has increased significantly, diluting the importance of a single vote. Information flows readily into our homes in a variety of media, giving rise to new criteria for the high office that makes every aspect of a candidate's life pertinent to the race.
Whether these changes are advancement, or whether we utilize our power to vote efficiently, is a matter of debate. What is not in question is that times have changed.
At one point, elected representatives were vital to casting national votes for President and Vice-President. Even with just a handful of colonies-turned-states, news traveled slowly from one end of the country to the next. Only those with party affiliations were in any position to know viable candidates and the issues they represented. The popular vote, therefore, was not to elect two men to head the Executive Branch but rather to elect knowledgeable citizens to make that choice.
Today, travel across the country is measured in seconds thanks to our computer network infrastructures. Knowledge about potential candidates, their issues and even personal background and past service are readily available to even the casual patriot. The need for special representation in a national vote has vanished.
Political parties over the past two centuries have helped dilute the importance of Electors, too. Representation mimics that of Congress, with each state receiving an elector for every Senator and House Representative sent to Washington. Initially, anyone could run for these positions on their own merits. But over time, political parties sought to better control who was involved in the electoral college by sending an approved list of names to the state after conventions. Eventually, states evolved further into electing an entire slate of electors based on party.
Technically, Electors are free to select whoever they want, but the parties who select them are attempting to guarantee votes for their candidate of choice. Deviations from the official game plan tend to have severe repercussions.
The Popularity Contest
With the gripping political wrangling in Florida following the 2000 Presidential election, there have been many calls for reforms or an outright elimination of the Electoral College. Clearly, the impetus behind the current method of electing our national leaders is out of touch with the realities of the day. However, a switch to a purely popular vote would be ripe with controversy and speculation exponentially greater than the shadow potentially cast on the Gore-Bush race.
Finalizing a popular vote across states is problematic, at best. Pity the spotlight thrust on Florida as the 21st century begins, but don't be blind to similar issues elsewhere in the nation that were masked by more lopsided tallies. In close elections relying on popular vote, fingers cannot be pointed to a particular Congressional District or state. Any voting irregularities in any part of the country could contribute to a significant shift in votes. If November 2000 is any indication, the same clerical and legal hassles experienced in the Sunshine State would be relevant in almost any future Presidential election decided strictly by a citizen majority.
Despite technology, errors will crop up in the tabulation of votes. Even the best ballot booths contain a marginal degree of error. The variances between voting procedures are dramatic due to differences in state legislation. The variances between local ballot equipment are also substantial due to funding. Since state autonomy is an obstacle to conformity, no national voting mechanism will be perfect. We can only hope for reasonable representation.
That is the other issue of concern which faced our Founding Fathers from the start. The Senate and the Electoral College system that followed it were products of preserving states rights. For the same reasons we would not want to eliminate the Senate from Congress, popular votes for national office are deemed inferior because sparsely populated states can easily be overwhelmed by the population centers of the U.S.
Popular mandate is a must in any national election. Our President must be a person possessing the declared confidence of the majority of the nation. But this can be achieved easily with modifications to the Electoral College system rather than it's outright elimination.
Vexation Without Representation
The notion that special citizens are needed to serve as electors may have run its course. Party conventions and special appointments have rendered a popular vote for Electors moot. There is no choice presented on the ballot and no way to elect only the most worthy, regardless of party affiliation. Votes cast by Electors on the first Monday after the second Wednesday of December could just as easily be delivered by the Presidential candidates themselves.
Electors could still be of use to find a new President if they -- not Congress -- determined victors in split votes. When the electoral college gathers separately by state to cast their votes for President and Vice-President, they have just one chance to determine the outcome of the election. Electoral college votes are sealed and not revealed until January 6 before a joint Congress, where an absolute majority (currently 270 votes) is required to complete the election of the high offices. Falling short, Congress itself breaks the deadlock with the House selecting one of the top three Presidential contenders and the Senate selecting one of the top two Vice-Presidential contenders. Regardless, the job of the Elector has ended after the initial vote.
This reality runs counter to the intent of the Founding Fathers. The creation of an electorate absent of Congressional members guards the separation of power by not permitting the Legislative Branch from determining the Executive Branch. However, rather than allow the Electors to manage that task, the current system permits Congress to take that authority upon itself.
Throwing out the Electors, however, does not mean the principle needs to be scrapped. Representation is still possible with a reformed Electoral College.
The "winner-take-all" system allows the popular vote of a state to decide how all of its electors vote, rather than apportioning each to better represent the relative support for the candidates. Maine and Nebraska are the only states which divide their electoral representatives to reflect popular vote of registered citizenry. The other 48 states should follow their lead. Statewide popular vote should decide only two Electors with the remainder decided by popular vote within each Congressional District, repeating the time-tested formula for selecting Senators and Representatives.
Razing the Political Landscape
Immediately, this gives rise to many important improvements in the national political scene.
Close elections could target Congressional Districts and states where the difference in popular vote is within one percent. (Absolute majorities would never be required for Electoral representation.) In these situations, recounts would be mandated and legal challenges could be made in an expedient fashion. All other races could be declared final based on the initial returns. Winning a state would earn a candidate three electoral votes, minimum. But the rest would be up for grabs based on regional support from the masses.
In addition to being more accurate for the victor, popular representation of the electorate also serves to heighten the ability of third parties to mount effective national campaigns. In order to gain headway in successive elections, third-party candidates could target regional strongholds with the incentive of seeing tangible results on Election Day. Third-party supporters could work to grow recognition over the years through a viable candidate while continuing to serve as a power broker in the Electoral process.
For many citizens faced with the task of choosing between one's heart and head, a vote for a preferred candidate could effectively serve both the need to support an also-ran and have a role in the final outcome. This presents a significantly more satisfying scenario for many Americans.
Of course, Electoral College reforms affect only the end of a journey still made nearly impossible by campaign and ballot-access restrictions that inherently favor the two-party system. Providing equality on the campaign trail through funding and spending laws is vital to giving fledgling parties a fighting chance at the same national spotlight enjoyed by Democrats and Republicans. And even with that playing field leveled, eliminating automatic party placement and reducing the restrictions on party representation on the state ballots are vital to recognizing third-party candidates as viable.
The stark political reality in America is that we live in a country that embraces the two-party system, often by design. Until these obstacles to the meaningful involvement of minority political parties are removed, debating any other issue will continue to be a mere exercise.
The quickest path to capturing the attention of an unmotivated populous is to make it easier to be heard. For any third party supporter, the prime call to action must revolve around election and campaign reform. Thanks to Election 2000 and the failure of the Republicans and Democrats to win a clear decision, that call may finally be answered.
Content originally provided by 3rdparty.org is not subject to copyleft freedoms in its original form. Any reproduction of 3rdparty.org content published in this wiki must be accompanied by the following link to the original version: