The Electoral College Is Not Unfair

By | 2017-06-02T18:30:05+00:00 November 12, 2016|
Print Friendly

screen-shot-2016-05-06-at-4-44-56-am

Every election with a disparity between the popular and electoral vote brings cries to abolish the Electoral College. Aside from the fact that doing so would require a constitutional amendment, which would require ratification by states that would lose if it passed, there are several reasons why I think the Electoral College is a good idea.

Arrow’s Theorem demolishes abstract “fairness” arguments. It says that no election rules can meet all of the following criteria that most of us would consider essential for a fair election:

  • The rules do not merely pick a single voter and ignore everyone else.
  • If every voter prefers candidate A to candidate B, the final result also prefers A to B.
  • Adding or removing a losing candidate does not change the winner.

In other words, “The Electoral College is unfair, but we can make elections fair by doing X” is invalid because no such X exists.

Here’s a way to look at it that even non-mathematicians should find comfortable. In the 2016 World Series, the Cubs and Indians each scored 27 runs. Why is it fair to say that the Cubs won?

The answer, of course, is that the Cubs won more games than the Indians, and the World Series defines the winner as the team that wins the most out of seven games. An Indians fan who objected to this definition after the Series would be nothing more than a sore loser.

In addition to not being “unfair,” the Electoral College has pragmatic benefits. For example, although some votes remain to be counted, it looks like neither Clinton nor Trump won a majority (as opposed to a plurality) of the popular vote. Moreover, Johnson and Stein each won more votes than the difference between the two major-party candidates. Thus we cannot know for sure which candidate would have secured the popular vote had Johnson or Stein dropped out. The possibility of a minor candidate’s departure changing the outcome is the last of the fairness criteria I mentioned earlier; if that actually happened, it would cause widespread dismay. As another example, the 2000 election came down to a few hundred votes in a single state, a fact that led to a polarizing legal battle. Can you imagine the consequences if the nationwide popular vote turned out to be that close?

Another benefit of the Electoral College is that it forces candidates to take voters’ different circumstances into account more than they otherwise would do. Different state governments can and do adopt different policies and promote different interests. Therefore, we can reasonably expect federal policies to affect residents of different states differently. For example, states that have legalized marijuana (even in part) interact with federal policies differently from other states. As another example, New Jersey has nearly 1,000 times as many people per square mile as Alaska. Surely residents of these states, with such wildly different circumstances, resources, and interests, require vastly different kinds of interactions with the federal government. Without the Electoral College, candidates would have no reason to seek votes from Alaskans at all.

As the Constitution originally was written, individual citizens voted directly only for members of the House of Representatives. The state legislatures decided how to pick both senators and electors—who, in turn, chose the president and vice-president. Thus the Electoral College was a kind of geographically distributed search committee. The idea, I think, was that the House should represent the voters, the Senate should represent the states, and the President should represent the nation as a whole. Moreover, the President had no power to create laws—only to veto them if they did not seem consonant with the national interest and did not have enough congressional support to override that veto.

In other words, Congress’s job was to pass laws acceptable both to most of the people (via the House) and to most of the states (via the Senate); the president’s job was to apply sanity checks (via veto power) and then to enforce the laws, not to make new ones. This point of view is what led to the people electing the House directly, to the state governments controlling how to elect the Senate and the electors, and to the number of electors being the sum of the number of people’s representatives and states’ representatives.

If the federal government’s work were actually distributed this way today, different states could better deal with residents’ different circumstances. Moreover, several states could agree to decide serious policy questions by trying several alternatives at once to see which worked best, rather than forcing a single choice on all.

I think that such distribution would yield a less polarized society because a blessed thing would happen:  presidential elections would not matter so much.

About the Author:

Andrew Koenig
Andrew Koenig is a computer scientist and author who is now mostly retired after 26 years at Bell Labs and its offshoots. He was one of the founders of the international standards committee for the C++ programming language, and author or coauthor of three books and a couple of hundred magazine articles. He lives in a semi-rural part of New Jersey, where these days he spends most of his energy on music and photography. He has never been formally affiliated with a political party, but was reading Milton Friedman in the 1960s. Photo by: Tom Maciejewski
  • Syanis

    If someone believes affirmative action has any use at all they must also agree with the electoral college. The electoral college is pretty much affirmative actions for politics and voters. It ensures that the minority has a voice and makes it so politicians must look to everyone and not just a few high population areas treating everyone equally and fairly. Without the electoral college the election process would be about 5 states that decide the election while the rest have to abide by those states decision. Politicians would then only favor those states setting policies to grow their own people in those states while driving out enough of the competition.

    So how many liberals out there hate affirmative action 100% thinking it has no use what so ever in the slightest? Only those liberals would have the right to cry about the electoral college while the rest are hateful bigots.

    • Eric

      Not the same at all. Affirmative action exists to redress the enormous legacy of two centuries of slavery, followed by another century of Jim Crow laws.

      And the electoral college skews things too far the other direction, so that the small population states have too much of a voice relative to the big population ones.

      • Syanis

        So then why does affirmative action work towards the benefits of hispanics? woman? and pretty much anyone non white male? Affirmative action is about making sure the non majority still have a voice, still have rights, and are still protected equally…. at least that was the intent. You should be ashamed making such a completely bogus argument. Not that long ago Dems were praising the electoral college as well as it often protected their interests but as they had a horribly poor choice of a candidate and had ignored many issues facing regular Americans of all color the average American turned on them.

    • MF

      It is more hypocritical for those who do NOT believe in affirmative action to accept such a sad and merit-less “win.” Affirmative action was designed because people were discriminating against hiring people of different “race, creed, color, or national origin.” Since “unpopulated piece of land” is NOT an underrepresented race, creed, color, or national origin, it should not receive that type of aid. Sad that you do not see your own hypocrisy.

  • Eric

    The will of the majority has been thwarted in 2 of the last 5 elections. That is a pretty high failure rate.

    And no, it is not fair that someone from Wyoming gets to have their vote count for three times as much as my vote counts.

  • ADM64

    The Electoral College forces the candidates to consider the nation as a whole. It cannot be held accountable for the fact that the difference in the popular vote totals fundamentally comes down to the fact that a large majority of Californians are not terribly intelligent, even if they have college degrees.

    • AJ Costa

      Laughable. Liberals don’t attempt to base the laws of our nation off of a ridiculous imaginary being and the related Bible. CA and its 6th largest economy.

  • glendower

    “The tyranny of the majority has been thwarted in
    2 of the last 5 elections.”

    FIFY. Google “tyranny of the majority” and see what you get.