America is a federal republic. Some Americans don't like this, and try, from time to time, to alter the nation's institutions to make the United States more centralized democracy than federal republic. Occasionally, the enemies of federalism and republicanism succeed in their efforts. The 17th Amendment to the Constitution, revoking a state government's representation in the federal government--Senators--in favor of direct election of upper-chamber representatives from the people of the states, who already had representation through the House of Representatives (Get it? Representatives) is an example of this.

A new effort is afoot along these same lines. Activists are trying to get states to award their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote in the presidential election. States--through the electoral college--and not popular majorities choosing the executive officer of the federal government is so, so, so 18th century, so dead white male, so pre-Civil War, so federalist, so republican. Thus, in one sense, they want to do an end-around on the Constitution and, in effect, amend the document without having to go through the burdensome process of doing so. But, in another sense, since the Constitution allows for "faithless electors" and grants legislatures power in deciding electors, the move, if adopted by given states, is perfectly legal--legal, but unwise.

Like a lot of bad ideas, the idea to award electoral votes to the national winner of the popular vote, and not the state winner of the popular vote, is embraced by elected representatives in California. Barry Fadem, a leader in the Golden State drive to eliminate the electoral college, claims: "This is a bill that would allow California to be able to play a role in presidential elections." No, actually it wouldn't. Had California awarded its electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote it would have awarded its votes to the candidate who actually lost the state's popular vote in 2004, 1988, and 1976. In its lame attempt to replace federal republicanism with democratic nationalism, this idea disenfranchises the people of an entire state. In negating California's vote when it clashes with the nation's vote, the plan is pro-majority rather than pro-California.

Another consideration involves the introduction of plurality presidents. In the current system of electing a president, the winner must take a majority of votes. Thus, to win the presidency, a candidate must win a majority--270 or more--of the 538 votes that matter. In a direct democracy, a candidate needn't win a majority of votes--unless a runoff system is also introduced--to win the presidency. Despite what historians might tell you about George W. Bush, Benjamin Harrison, Rutherford B. Hayes, and John Quincy Adams, there has never been a president elected with a minority of votes. To be president, a candidate must win a majority of votes. If the electoral college doesn't produce a majority winner, then the House of Representatives must. But, and this is key, the representatives vote to determine the presidential vote of their state. And the majority winner of the states' votes becomes president.

Even after the experience of 2000, when dolts had to have it explained to them how the president of their government gets elected, some might argue that a measure eliminating the electoral college would be more symbolism than substance. After all, there's only been a few times in history when the popular vote winner has lost the electoral college, or, in Andrew Jackson's case in 1824, lost through the House vote provided for in the Twelfth Amendment. Even if ditching the electoral college is more symbolism than substance, the symbolism would be one suggesting a singular state instead of a "state" of states, or put another way, a federal republic. It would affirm by law the unlawful, and sustained, assault on federalism that, by my count, has been going on for more than 200 years.

Back in 2000, Salvador Astucia, who in his spare time is a Holocaust denier, proposed that Democratic governors of states that went Republican should call special sessions of their legislatures. These sessions would select presidential electors who would be, of course, pledged to vote for Gore.

At the time, nobody paid any attention to him.

I don't think this is immediately a bad idea. With the way our government is structured currently the electoral college seems antiquated, and it does seem unfair in part for the winner of the popular vote to be the loser. If the 17th amendment never passed, if states actually did retain more freedom from the federal government, then the electoral college would make sense. But since that isn't the way it is, why not let the winner be the guy with the popular vote?

Obu Juan: I don't understand your argument. You call the electoral college antiquated and unfair, and you say it doesn't make sense. Why? Either is has positive effects on our ability to get good presidents, or it has negative effects. You haven't offered any reasons to say the latter, so you haven't offered any reasons to abolish it.

Then you ask, rhetorically-- "why not" get rid of it? Dan offers at least two reasons. First, the possibility of plurality candidates. We couldn't just abolish the electoral college, we would have to replace it with some run-off system or accept plurality candidates as winners. Right now, someone with, say, 35 percent of the popular vote couldn't be president unless they demonstrated enough geographically broad support to win the college by a majority. In effect, the electoral college adds another hurdle for a candidate to jump.

Second, Dan points out that the electoral college is one means of protecting minority voting blocks against majorities. This is one of the key difference between republicanism and democratism, at least in our tradition. And if we think it is worth while to lessen whatever national mass-man tendencies our system has, the college is one way of doing that, symbolically and practically.

I'll add another (related to the last). Having the electoral college changes the way we think about national electoral differences, and helps determine which voting blocks candidates pay attention to. In geographically divided countries (as our is currently to only a small extent, but think of Iraq or the Ukraine, where election are much more divided geographically) forcing candidates to pay attention to different forces helps produce candiates that are oriented toward the _common_ good, or at least helps control candidates who aren't.

We could afford to miss presidential hopefuls flocking to Iowa waving ears of corn and promising ethanol subsidies. This is what the system protects. I don't see any downside to particular minority voting blocs like this having much less influence.

That is the party primary system and has nothing to do w/ the electoral college Obi.

Obi-- so your response to all the reasons given by the founders (and by Dan and by me) to defend the electoral college, and federal republicanism in general, is to make fun of the Iowa caucus? That's cool, but not convincing.

Iowa was a battleground state.

The founders created the electoral college to be a part of a system, and that system largely does not exist anymore. Either we should go back to what the founders intended and repeal the 17th amendment among other things, or plod ahead and get rid of the electoral college.

Obi: The fact that a great deal of our federal-republican system has been dismantled is no reason to keep dismantling it. That's like a 16 year old girl saying, "my virginity is gone... I might as well become a prostitute." That is, just because we've made false steps away from federal-republicanism is no reason to abandon it altogether. The question is not what fits in best with the rest of the system. The question is whether the electoral college helps us or hurts us in trying to get good presidents.

I think it's more like an old french whore saying it.

Obi: the point is that you are advocating a change. Now your argument turns out to be, "it is not a change at all, and besides, making this change is more consistent with other aspects of our system." Or perhaps your argument is, "Things are so bad, who cares any more?" I can't tell. Either way, exaggerated pessimism about our ability to make good change, isn't much of an argument for positively joining the enemy and making bad changes-- at least for me.