As you may be aware, there was a little election recently here in the states. The two major-party candidates, each considered deeply flawed in certain non-trivial ways, squared off in an effort to become President Obama's successor. In the end, Hillary Clinton won 48% of the vote, Donald Trump won 46% of the vote, and the rest was split by so-called third party candidates.
What a nail-biter, you might think. I'm sure Trump supporters were disappointed to have come so close yet come up short and Clinton supporters are breathing a sigh of relief. But wait a minute, you say, I thought the news said Trump was going to be the President?
You're right, he will be (at least barring any success in convincing some "faithless electors" to jump ship). In the United States, the popular vote does not determine the presidency. The real vote is held when the "Electoral College" convenes in December, which is an arcane gathering of "Electors" representing the winners from each state in a number roughly proportional to that state's population in accordance with Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. In 2016, the Electoral College will, for the fifth time in American history, make someone President who won fewer votes than his opponent.
If that sounds a little bizarre to you, you are not alone. This Electoral College system has been deeply unpopular in the U.S. with voters of all parties for years. According to FairVote, there have been at least 700 proposed amendments to modify or abolish the Electoral College over the course of U.S. history — more than any other subject of Constitutional reform.
And yet, it remains. Why? Well, mostly because of inertia. The Electoral College is enshrined in the Constitution itself, and the Constitution is very hard to change. Counting the first ten Amendments of the Constitution together (as they were adopted as a package, i.e., the Bill of Rights), the Constitution has only been successfully amended 18 times in its 228 years of existence. There are two paths to amending the Constitution: proposal by a 2/3 vote of both houses of Congress, or the much more difficult (and accordingly heretofore never employed) "national convention" method in which an Amendment is demanded by the legislatures of 2/3 of the states. Then, after one of those has been accomplished, the proposed Amendment must be ratified by 3/4 of the states, either via their legislatures or by state-ratifying conventions.
Worse, now that the Electoral College has operated to the benefit of the Republican candidate twice in the last 16 years, its abolition is now irrevocably intertwined with partisan politics. You may have already received a condescending "civics lesson" in defense of the EC from your Republican friends on social media. Basically, the defense is as follows: F*ck California, that's why.
OK, that's a bit pointed. The more nuanced argument for keeping the EC is that, without it, a candidate might be able to win by maximizing his or her support in major urban areas and ignoring voters in lesser populated states who assumably have different values and priorities. This is in keeping with the strong sense of federalism that permeated the founding fathers' thinking, i.e., that we are a nation of states not citizens.
Of course, the counterargument is that, no, we are not a nation of states but of people. Increasingly, those people choose to live close to each other, often seeking the economic and cultural benefits that come from doing so. Certainly that fact should not operate to make their voices any less important than others on an individual basis. These are people that will be affected, as individuals, by the President's decisions on all manner of important issues from policy-making, to Supreme Court selections, to declaring and waging war and so forth. People are also very mobile these days, meaning that today's LA voter might be a mid-west resident next year or visa versa. It also seems quite shallow to assume that all urban dwellers or all rural state residents hold the exact same values.
Second, on a more practical level, the EC as it is now operates to marginalize voters based on accidents of geography. Millions of people in urban and rural areas alike watch helplessly as "swing states" like Florida, Ohio, or Pennsylvania decide who gets to be their President. EC apologists will say that swing states change over time, but that is small comfort to people who didn't win the swing state lottery in a given year.
In the end it's about fairness. It's about democracy. It's that every vote counts. Right now, not every vote does. According to one calculation, a an Arizona resident's vote is worth 600x a Californian's vote! This is appalling.
What can you do? Contact your elected officials! Tell your senators and representatives to support a popular vote for President and abolish the EC. Tell your state government representatives to support the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact if you live in a state that isn't already signed on; it really needs some big traditionally red states to sign on — Texas, I'm looking at you!
It won't be easy. It will require persistence and patience. But in a world where Donald Trump can become President of the United States, anything seems possible.
