Aug. 11, 2008
Equality and the Electoral College
By John Thompson
RALEIGH - Americans have no constitutional right to vote for president.
Though the statement may surprise many voters, the U.S. Supreme Court said as much in 1892 and reaffirmed it in 2000. More than 200 years after the Founding Fathers laid out in the Constitution just four main points on electing the president, should that system still apply? If, as the Founders put forth, all men and women are created equal, then shouldn't every vote count equally when electing our nation’s president?
According to the book “Every Vote Equal,” the Constitution does not offer a clear and rigid guide to electing the president. Instead, the Electoral College was built with considerable flexibility, largely leaving to the states the responsibility of determining the mechanics of the system.
The manner in which we choose the president has changed dramatically since the earliest elections for commander in chief two centuries ago. In the nation’s first presidential contest, only four states gave voters a direct voice in selecting presidential electors, who in turn cast a vote for president. In most states, there was no election at all. Instead, the legislatures appointed the presidential electors for their respective state.
It was not until 1836 that all but one state allowed voters to directly choose their electors in a winner-take-all system, which is generally the model we have today.
As early as 1796, the malleability of the Electoral College was on display. That year, Thomas Jefferson lost a bitterly fought contest against his rival, John Adams. Jefferson attributed the defeat in part to his state's system of elector districts, which carved Virginia into subsections, each represented by its own elector. Jefferson complained that the district system diluted Virginia’s influence in presidential politics.
“Election by district would be best, if it could be general; but while 10 states choose either by their legislatures or by general ticket (winner take all) it is folly or worse than folly for the other six not to do it,” Jefferson wrote after his electoral loss. In response, Virginia changed to a winner-take-all system. The shift allowed Jefferson to carry all of his state’s electors in 1800, although his victory that year ultimately relied on a vote in the U.S. House of Representatives -- another wrinkle of the Electoral College.
Whereas Jefferson fretted about his state's diminished voice in presidential elections under the district system, today millions of voters are effectively disenfranchised when it comes to picking the president. In the five most recent presidential elections, two thirds of the states have been non-competitive, including the six most populous and the twelve least populous, as well as the vast majority of medium-sized states.
Under the Electoral College system, is every vote equal when it comes to choosing our president? Campaign managers seem to think not, as made clear by following the money. In the last presidential election, 99 percent of the nearly $240 million reportedly spent on advertising in the final month of the race went to 17 states -- only 1 percent was spent in the remaining 33.
To paraphrase George Orwell, under the Electoral College system all votes are equal, but some are more equal than others. Former Republican congressman Tom Campbell notes that California has 35,893,799 residents. Wyoming has 596,520. California casts 55 electoral votes for President. Wyoming casts three. The result: a Wyoming voter is worth four times as much as a California voter in selecting the president.
“No Californian should accept the present way we elect presidents,” Campbell says. “No American should accept it.”
John Thompson is the executive director of the N.C. Center for Voter Education, a Raleigh-based nonprofit and nonpartisan organization dedicated to improving elections in North Carolina.
3933 Arrow Dr.
Suite 101
Raleigh, N.C. 27612
877.258.6837 (toll free)