An Empty Institution

There are still arguments for the Electoral College that must be addressed. In Federalist No. 68, Alexander Hamilton writes “the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station [of president].” In other words, the electors of the Electoral College would provide a check on the public, should they make a poor choice for president. However, this function of the Electoral College is no longer relevant. First, electors are no longer independent agents, nor are they agents of state legislatures. Rather, they are chosen by party conventions or party leaders specifically for their loyalty to the party. Secondly, most states and the District of Columbia have elector pledge laws, creating penalties for electors who go against the popular vote in their states. What is left is an Electoral College that serves no function except to distort the national popular vote.

There is also the founding-era argument that the Electoral College was necessary because the American populace lacked the information needed to make an informed decision. In this era of instant communication, lack of information is certainly not a concern. By this argument, the Electoral College could have been abolished by the 1830s with the advent of high-speed news printing or even earlier when national political parties connected local candidates to presidential candidates and national party platforms. By the analysis of Yale Professor Amar:

“Although the Philadelphia framers did not anticipate the rise of a system of national presidential parties, the 12th Amendment—proposed in 1803 and ratified a year later— was framed with such a party system in mind, in the aftermath of the election of 1800-01. In that election, two rudimentary presidential parties—Federalists led by John Adams and [Democratic-]Republicans led by Thomas Jefferson—took shape and squared off.”

The most enduring argument for the Electoral College, however, is the argument that without it, rural areas would be ignored. Recent elections readily disprove the argument, instead showing that it is with the Electoral College that rural areas are ignored. Campaigns are now forced to spend the vast majority of their time and resources on swing states. In 2016, 92% of campaign activity took place in just 11 states. 27 states, including almost all of rural America, were ignored completely. In the last two months before the 2016 election, 53% of campaign visits made by Trump, Clinton, and their respective running mates were in just 4 states: Florida, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Ohio. Outside of swing states, the Clinton campaign made only three stops. According to Fair Vote, “one was to Nebraska’s second congressional district, which in fact can swing an electoral vote… one was a union rally in Illinois, which likely was chosen due to being close to the border of nearby swing state Ohio. The last was a trip to Arizona which may have become a swing state” later on. Even in the states that did receive campaign visits, the candidates focused on urban areas. When Clinton and Trump visited Pennsylvania for example, 72% of their time was spent in the Philadelphia and Pittsburgh areas. In the final two months of the campaign, all 8 visits by the two candidates to Michigan were to the Detroit and Grand Rapids areas. It is simply the reality of modern presidential election campaigns that “safe” states are not the priority. Thus, not only are the most populous states like California, Texas, and New York underrepresented, but rural America also receives little attention.

We have now the Electoral College, an empty institution with explicitly racist origins and no function in the modern day besides distorting and suppressing the democratic voice of the American people.

–Alex Li