Much of the debate about the electoral college is partisan. Republicans mostly like the electoral college because it benefits them because their constituency is spread out. Democrats mostly dislike the electoral college because they believe they benefit more from the “one man, one vote” principle. This phenomenon is understandable. If I was a politician, I would hope that the rules benefited my side. Although motivated reasoning often fuels this debate, the benefits of the electoral college do outweigh the costs. The electoral college is important because of transregional appeal and operational clarity.
One benefit of the electoral college is the need for transregional support. No one region of the country has the electoral college votes necessary to win the presidency. This is by design. If the popular vote was overwhelmingly decided in major cities like New York or Los Angeles, the rest of the country would feel disenfranchised. Switching to a popular vote would change the calculus for politicians. Instead of having to travel across the country to talk to voters, they will be incentivized to solely campaign in large cities. By contrast, the electoral college encourages politicians to see every region as crucial to their victory plans.[1] This is an important feature, because although “land can’t vote”, different locations have different interests. The electoral college motivates politicians to address these different interests, whereas a popular vote may not.
A second benefit of the electoral college is operational clarity. This operational clarity manifests itself in certainty of outcome, the avoidance of run-off elections, and easier mechanisms to detect fraud. Let’s start with certainty of outcome. Although disputes are possible, it’s less likely than a dispute over the popular vote. Almost all states have winner-take-all systems which tend to create landslide electoral-vote totals. This wouldn’t be the case in a popular-vote system. If the difference in the popular is small, candidates will probably be incentivized to recount any state that would give more votes than to their opponents. This would paralyze the system further, creating additional turmoil.[2]
Another operational boon is the avoidance of run-off elections. The electoral college by virtue of having winner-take-all systems, avoids the problem of when a candidate fails to receive a majority of votes cast. Run-off elections don’t take place, which reduces the likelihood of third-party, or fringe candidates to make it onto the electoral scoreboard. Absent the electoral college, it’s unclear that there would be an effective brake on “viable” presidential candidates.[3]
Finally, the electoral college strongly discourages voter fraud. There’s little incentive for voter fraud in Montana, Idaho, or Kansas. However, if presidential elections were based on national totals, every single voting station would need to be made extremely secure, because everywhere could inflate national vote totals.[4] The costs of guaranteeing and attempting to verify every vote would be a fool’s errand, and with a proper injection of federal lawyers with nigh unlimited budgets, the mess in Maricopa can make its way into every ballot box.
Some may disagree with the electoral college because it fails to uphold the “one person, one vote principle, something seen as an essential part of our Republic. The concept of “one person, one vote” does not show up anywhere in the Constitution.[5] Instead, the idea was litigated into existence, and did not demonstrate its doctrinal power in the court of public opinion and intense debate. If “one person, one vote” is a moral imperative, it’s ideas must subject to vigorous political debate. It’s unclear why a National Popular Vote is worth adopting that doesn’t rely on already agreeing about the importance of a vague moral dictate that hasn’t been robustly debated nearly enough to adopt.
[1] Posner, R. A. (2012, November 12). In defense of the electoral college. Slate Magazine. Retrieved September 19, 2021, from https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2012/11/defending-the-electoral-college.html.
[2] [2] Posner, R. A. (2012, November 12). In defense of the electoral college. Slate Magazine. Retrieved September 19, 2021, from https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2012/11/defending-the-electoral-college.html.
[3] Guelzo, A., Allen, (2018, Winter) In defense of the electoral college. National Affairs. Retrieved September 19, 2021, from https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/in-defense-of-the-electoral-college.
[4] Guelzo, A., Allen, (2018, Winter) In defense of the electoral college. National Affairs. Retrieved September 19, 2021, from https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/in-defense-of-the-electoral-college.
[5] Muller T., Derek, (2016) Perpetuating ‘One Person, One Vote’ Errors Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy retrieved September 19, 2021 from https://www.harvard-jlpp.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2010/01/39_2-Muller_F.pdf
Isadore Johnson's Website 