Reform the Electoral College, Don't Toss It.(Brief Article)

The five-week post-election contest between Al Gore and George W. Bush has utterly de-mystified the Electoral College in the minds of Americans. Most of them tell pollsters they want to get rid of it.

So do lots of politicians, including Hillary Rodham Clinton, the most famous Senator-elect, who announced that she would sponsor legislation "to do away with the Electoral College and move to the popular election of our Presidents." Senator Mien Specter (R-Penn.) concurred.

Both Senators later admitted that passing a constitutional amendment to switch to a popular vote was a long shot. The reason, of course, is that the Electoral College gives disproportionate power to small states--that was one of the main reasons the Framers invented it--making those states unlikely ratifiers of any amendment.

It is true we don't elect our President by direct democracy, but that's precisely the point. The Constitution is a blueprint for protecting citizens, either as individuals or as members of minority groups, from the passions of majority rule. In fact, until 1832, Electors were chosen almost exclusively by state legislators. The Framers wanted a system that preserved federalism. They considered giving each state an equal vote, then compromised. In the Electoral College, a state has an Elector per congressional district plus an Elector for each of its two Senators.

The Electoral College has three practical effects. First, candidates have to pay attention to smaller states, as both Gore and Bush did this year, battling over the five votes of West Virginia and even Delaware's three. Second, the system usually magnifies small differences in popular votes, providing the winner with a more substantial mandate. For example, in 1960, John E Kennedy beat Richard Nixon by just a few tenths of a percentage point in the popular vote but won, 303-219, in the Electoral College.

Third, the Electoral College nearly eliminates the power of third parties and regional candidates. In the vast majority of elections, someone wins a majority. Rarely is a second round, with corrupt deal-making (as in 1824), required in the House of Representatives.

Still, the system has drawbacks. While candidates often pay great attention to smaller states, they sometimes completely ignore larger ones. In 2000, for instance, New York was written off by the GOP from the start, as was Texas by the Democrats. In a state like Massachusetts, which almost always goes Democratic, dispirited Republicans believe their votes never count; ditto, Democrats in Wyoming. Finally, as we saw in Florida, an excruciatingly tight race within a state ...