Skip to content Skip to left sidebar Skip to right sidebar Skip to footer

Electoral College provides power balance

“Perhaps the Electoral College is imperfect – but a perfect solution is doubtless unachievable.” Alexander Hamilton
One of the most important considerations in writing the Constitution was ensuring all states were properly represented. Without this, the more populous states that a could have consistently out-voted the small states, leaving them powerless. The founders knew this would not only destroy national unity, it would guarantee small states would refuse to join the union.
Out of this concern, the bicameral system of the Senate (equal representation for all states) and the House (representation based on population) was established in the legislative branch. Both House and Senate had to agree on bills before they could become law.
When it came to electing the president, a strong consensus was even more important. Therefore, the concept of the “Electoral College” was born. It established a process where all states had the same representation in the voting process as they did in the legislative process.
In each state, “electors” were selected, one for each legislator in the House and Senate. This gave smaller states a minimum of three electors, with larger states getting more based on population. Each state would send their electors to vote for the president based on the results of the popular vote in their state.
Generally 100 percent of the electors would vote for the winner in their state.
In order to win, the Presidential candidate had to win in enough states to garner a majority of the Electoral College votes. Instead of going to a few big cities or states and garnering large votes from them, and ignoring the smaller states, the politicians had to win Electoral College votes from both the big states and small states to win.
Why go through all this? The answer is “fairness, inclusiveness, unity.” It ensures small states such as Montana, Delaware, etc., have some say in the election process and accept the results. And state acceptance of the process and results were seen as the key to a strong union.
Historically, there have been times when a candidate received a lower popular vote but a higher Electoral College vote, winning the presidency. This demonstrates the value of the process in that the smaller states had power to influence the election results despite the overwhelming popular majority in the larger states.
This was the idea. State representation and acceptance of the results was of primary importance.
Today, not all are happy with the Electoral College system, especially when their candidate has garnered the majority of the popular vote loses. Some states are trying to work around the process and changing their Electoral College representation process as a back-door way to change the Constitution.
The press, politicians and activists push to eliminate the need for state consensus in favor of a nationwide majority rule process. This introduces more chaos, disunity and problems than it solves, and it dilutes the limited voting power of the smaller states in “fly-over country,” the very thing the Constitutional process is designed to prevent.
As Professor Charles R. Kesler of Claremont McKenna College noted:
“In truth, the issue is democracy with federalism (the Electoral College) versus democracy without federalism (a national popular vote). Either is democratic. Only the Electoral College preserves federalism, moderates ideological differences, and promotes national consensus in our choice of a chief executive.”