The following column is the opinion and analysis of the writer:
Another very close election. We wish elections were not that close. We would prefer a clear winner, and we would like the candidate who gets the most popular votes to be the one elected president. That seems, well, democratic. There are many who say we should get rid of the Electoral College. Yet, strangely, the Electoral College often gives us better, cheaper and more legitimate outcomes.
First, the Electoral College vote usually adds legitimacy to the result. It is rare than anyone gets a very large majority of the votes. With the exception of Richard Nixon in 1972 and Ronald Reagan in 1984, no presidential candidate in the last 50 years has received more than 54% of the popular vote. Bill Clinton never received even 50% of the total vote.
Yet, he received 68% and 70% of the Electoral College vote in 1992 and 1996. Similarly, Barack Obama received less than 53% of the popular vote in 2008 and 2012, but in each case he received over 60% of the Electoral College vote. Even in 2020, while Joe Biden received less than 52% of the popular vote, it appears that he will receive almost 57% of the Electoral College votes.
So, the Electoral College usually amplifies the effect of the popular vote. 2000 and 2016 are the only recent exceptions to that rule.
Second, if the Electoral College did not exist and the election had been decided by popular vote, it is not obvious that the result would have been different. Because of the Electoral College, candidates do not have to campaign intensively in every state. That lack of campaigning means that many people do not bother to vote.
It is a form of voluntary voter self-suppression. If the campaigns had to pursue every vote in every state, voter participation would increase. But it is not clear whom that would help.
Are there a lot of Republicans who don’t vote in California and New York because they know their vote won’t matter? Or do Democrats in those states skip voting as well?
Third, if the election were decided by popular vote, campaigns would be far more expensive and far more exhausting — not only for the candidates but for all of us who have to watch the political ads and receive the texts and e-mails. Pursuing every vote in every state would vastly increase the cost of campaigning for the presidency. The Electoral College is the one reason I would like to live in California — I would not have to suffer through nearly as many political ads.
Fourth, if the election were decided by popular vote and the election were close, post-election conflicts would be far more complex and difficult. Instead of a handful of close contests in a few states, every vote in every state, county and precinct would have to be counted and recounted. Lawsuits would proliferate. Instead of lawsuits and recounts in a handful of states, the whole country would be thrown into chaos.
Fifth, even if states changed the way electors vote so that the national winner gets the state’s electoral votes, that wouldn’t solve the problem raised by the fourth point. Every vote in every state would still be contested in a close race.
This is a practical, not a theoretical, defense of the Electoral College. From a theoretical perspective, we would prefer to have the candidate with the most votes win the election. But from a practical perspective, the Electoral College reduces the cost of elections, reduces post-election contests and almost always gives us the president with the most votes.
