Is it Time to Graduate the Electoral College
WASHINGTON – U.S. Rep. William Delahunt reintroduced legislation this week that he first proposed in 2000 calling for an end to the Electoral College, a system he said undermines fundamental tenets of democracy.
The Massachusetts congressman said Al Gore’s loss to George Bush in 2000 – despite Gore’s winning the popular vote by more than half a million votes – highlighted flaws Congress should confront before they occur again.
“Public officials, from selectmen to senators, are chosen by majority vote,” Delahunt said. “That’s the way it’s supposed to work in a democracy. And that’s how we should elect the president of the greatest democracy on earth.”
The Electoral College system “cannot be squared with the principle of majority rule,” he said, adding that the system is inconsistent with “one person, one vote.”
Acknowledging he is “under no illusion” about the challenge of amending the Constitution, he said the antiquated system requires reform before it forces lawmakers into cleaning up an unnecessary election mess.
“But now is the time to act – while the memory of the 2000 experience is fresh,” Delahunt said, “and while there is still time to spare the American electorate from a possible rerun of that ordeal.”
The Electoral College system designates a number of electoral votes for each state based on its population. Each state is assigned a number of votes equal to its number of House representatives, plus two more votes for the two senators from the state. Washington, D.C., is allocated three electors.
A candidate must receive 270 of the 538 electoral votes to become president-elect. Winning a majority vote in Massachusetts currently earns a candidate 12 electoral votes.
Only a constitutional amendment could abolish the Electoral College system.
Making every vote count
David Agnew, spokesman for Cape Codders for Peace and Justice, said he supports the direct popular vote that Delahunt argued would simplify the process and assure that every American’s vote counts equally.
“I think it’s a given that in Massachusetts that we’re going to vote for John Kerry,” said Agnew, of Chatham. “I care deeply about democracy, and yet, I’m wasting my time going to the polls. It shouldn’t be that way.”
The current system, he said, forces Kerry and President Bush to devote too much attention to “battleground states” whose sought-after electoral votes will likely determine the election. He said people in states considered “decided” are prone to political apathy because candidates tend to ignore them.
James Whitson, who in 1999 founded PresidentElect.org, a Web site devoted to the Electoral College, said a purely popular vote would result in neglected voters, as candidates would pass up rural areas to court populous regions.
“It would make the elections more concentrated in populated, urban areas because it would be cheaper and more convenient,” said Whitson. “The Electoral College actually forces candidates to campaign around the country.”
A call for more debate
Some who might be inclined to support Delahunt on the issue are wary of the timing.
Margie Burgess, chairwoman of the Plymouth Republican Town Committee, said it would be wiser to educate Americans more carefully about how the Electoral College works and “allow time to debate both sides of the issue.”
“It’s worked well for years and I don’t think you take a system we’ve had in government for many years, and change it without a lot of thought,” Burgess said. She said that the system may benefit from change, but also suggested that Delahunt’s proposal may reflect Kerry’s recent slump in the polls.
“I can understand the reasoning behind some people’s interest in changing the system,” Burgess said, “but this timing’s suspect.”
Delahunt spokesman Steve Schwadron dismissed this idea.
“It is precisely because we are coming toward a presidential election that the timing makes sense,” Schwadron said. “So there is not even a hint of partisan advantage for any camp.”
