Cedars, October 2019

October 2019 9 OFF-CAMPUS SHOULD WE ABOLISH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE? NO Majoritarianism is not Democracy by Breanna Beers W hile not a perfect institution by any means, the Electoral College is far from undermining our democracy. In fact, it may be one of the last safe- guards still upholding it. Many of the so-called “weaknesses” of the Electoral College are actually its greatest strengths. Most proposals to abolish the Electoral College rely on the value of majori- tarianism, the view that decisions should be made by simple majority rule. However, rule by the simple majority inevita- bly leads to tyranny of the majority, in which the majority of the electorate can and does favor its own interests exclusive- ly and to the direct detriment of the rest of the population. The United States was designed with a number of checks and balances to preserve democracy while avoiding tyranny. The Electoral College is one of these balances, representing the will of the people while providing a countervailing mea- sure that prevents the domination of a single special interest group. It minimizes plurality victors, limits geographic frag- mentation, resists radicalization and prevents fraud. Nearly all functioning democracies employ some mea- sure to lend legitimacy to plurality victors, be it a run-off election, parliamentary coalition-building, or the single transferable vote system — all foreign terms to most Amer- icans, thanks to the Electoral College. Abolishing the Electoral College in favor of a national popular vote would enable candidates to win not with ma- jority support, as majoritarians claim, but with just enough to beat out the competition. This system naturally tends to favor aggressive, charismatic demagogues who can mobilize their supporters against a split voter base, leading to a pres- ident who the majority of the country actually disfavors but who won with the largest united segment of the population. Under a national popular vote system, no candidate is required to actually achieve 50%, encouraging small inter- est groups to field their candidates if only for the nation- al attention it would win their cause. Once this gets going, it’s entirely possible for a president to be elected with 40%, 30%, 20%, or even 10% of the vote. While plurality victors have occurred under the Electoral College, they are all but guaranteed under the national popular vote, and by a much wider margin than the 2-3% we’ve seen so far. The electoral college also plays a role in breaking up geographic coalitions, or at least preventing them from be- coming a singularly dominant force in American politics. Yes, it’s possible to win the Electoral College with only the 11 largest states. But without the Electoral College, it’s possible to win the presidency with only the 146 largest counties, fa- voring the domination of urban interests. All 11 of those large states come from geographical- ly diverse regions of the country. North, south, east, west (and yes, even the Midwest; shout out to you, Illinois!) are all represented. Several of these states are also among the most ethnically diverse in the nation, further ensuring that the voices of all Americans are represented. The oft-cited statistic of vote power in Wyoming vs. New York is jarring. But when was the last time Wyoming swung the presidency? (Hint: the answer is never.) So who really has the most voting power? Is it Wyoming, with three electors for its population of less than 250,000? Or is it California, with its 55 electors — easily enough to swing an election? Neither. The 14 battleground states vary in size, change from year to year, and are spread across the U.S. Critics of the Electoral College decry the high levels of campaign attention given to this “elite” group. But even leaving aside whether receiving higher levels of campaign marketing and partisan advertising is actually the privilege pundits make it out to be, swing states steward that glory for the benefit of us all. According to political scholars, swing states are all that retains any modicum of moderation in our political sphere. It’s hard to believe after living through 2016, but yes, it could get worse: most experts suggest that abolishing the Electoral College would not create a national campaign carefully catered to all citizens across the nation (as if that were either possible or desirable). Instead, the elimination of the Electoral College and with it, the swing states, would incentivize candidates to further entrench themselves in their existing outposts, focusing their efforts on mobilizing their supporters to turn up at the polls. Removing swing states removes the need to appeal to swing voters, instead encouraging extreme partisanship. Centrist voters would become a small, dispersed minority, rather than a crucial collective market. Further, the Electoral College systematically disincen- tivizes voter fraud. Legal scholar Tara Ross identified three obstacles inherent in the Electoral College system that must be overcome in order for voter fraud to be worthwhile, let alone feasible. First, the election has to be close enough na- tionally that one or two states could flip the election; sec- ond, the margins within those states have to be extremely close themselves; and third, dishonest actors have to be able to predict which states those are ahead of time. Under a national popular vote system, every addition- al ballot counts, so low-level party officials adding a few hundred extra votes in one jurisdiction, another hundred in another, could quickly add up to swing the national elec- tion. Historically, there have been numerous elections in which the national popular vote varied by only a few thou- sand votes between candidates. By contrast, even the clos- est swing state in the 2016 election (won by only 0.3% of the popular vote within the state) had a differential of over 13,000 votes — this would have been impossible to predict before the votes were counted. The Electoral College is an imperfect institution that should be examined for reform. For instance, the winner- take-all system employed in 48 of the 50 states has been subject to some legitimate criticisms. However, removing this component would retain many of the goods of the Elec- toral College discussed above. Instead, each state’s electors could be appointed pro- portionally according to the popular vote within the state (not according to congressional districts, as Nebraska and Maine do; this system has its own problems, i.e. gerryman- dering). This reform could retain the check on pure majori- tarianism — preventing plurality victors, curbing fragmen- tation, retaining swing states, and disincentivizing fraud — while allowing the votes of Republicans in California and Democrats in Texas to still carry weight. Democracy involves giving the people, all people, a voice in government to produce a system that is both adapt- able and stable. The Electoral College, however imperfect, defends this principle and guards against the flaws of the simplest solution. Breanna Beers is a junior molecular and cellular biology major and the campus news editor for Cedars. She loves exercising curiosity, hiking new trails, and quoting “The Princess Bride” whether it’s relevant or not.