Close-up
The Electoral College is likely with us to stay, despite critics

By David Jackson
The Dallas Morning News

E-mail this article Print this article Search archive Most read articles Most e-mailed articles

Related stories Bush could win vote but lose the election

Colorado will decide Nov. 2 whether to change the way it allocates electoral votes, a referendum that could win the presidency for George W. Bush or John Kerry — and revive controversy over what activist Rob Richie calls "an accident waiting to happen," the Electoral College.

"If Colorado helps us get a national debate going, that's all to the good," said Richie, executive director of the Maryland-based Center for Voting and Democracy, which supports direct popular elections for presidents.

Other Electoral College disputes are in the offing; a Republican elector from West Virginia has talked about voting against President Bush even if he carries the Mountaineer State.

Yet despite all the grumbling — and the fact that voters dislike the Electoral College, according to polls — the chances of eliminating the Electoral College are slim. After all, political analysts said, the movement made little headway even after Bush's minority victory four years ago.

	John Quincy Adams, chosen by House in 1825.

"Once you have any electoral system changing, it hurts some people," said Alexander Keyssar, professor of history and social policy at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government. "Those people tend to howl."

Small states like the Electoral College because it gives them a say in electing the president, analysts said. Big states that lean Republican or Democratic, such as Texas or California, would be loath to change a system that benefits the party in power.

Under the proposed referendum, Colorado's nine electoral votes would be allocated in proportion to a candidate's voting percentage, likely meaning a 5-4 split for the Bush-Kerry winner.

If approved, the change would take place immediately. That could change the outcome of a close Bush-Kerry race, probably inviting a lawsuit from the loser. Such a change in Colorado four years ago would have put Al Gore in the White House.

	Rutherford B. Hayes, electoral panel's 1877 choice.

Opponents say it would hurt the state in the long run, because future presidential candidates would avoid Colorado altogether, given that all but the most dominating victory would result in a 5-4 electoral split.

That echoes one of the many complaints about the Electoral College: It narrows the playing field for candidates, as more than two-thirds of the states seem safely in one column or the other.

Tens of millions of voters in "red" or "blue" states such as Texas, California and New York receive little attention from the candidates. Instead, the campaign is focused on no more than a dozen closely contested states, including such small states as New Hampshire, New Mexico and Iowa, and the number is likely to shrink by Election Day.

"There are so many states out of play now," said Mark Rozell, a George Mason University public-policy professor who is re-thinking his support of the Electoral College. "So many people live in states where there is essentially no presidential election going on."

Whether Colorado changes its system, the basic protest of the system remains: The people of the United States don't actually elect the president.

	Benjamin Harrison, 1888 electoral winner.

That distinction belongs to the Electoral College, one of the many compromises behind the Constitution. Some framers wanted direct elections, but others feared the masses; some proposed that Congress make the pick, but others did not want the executive to become a tool of the legislature.

The result: a system in which voters selected a slate of electors, who, in turn, picked the president.

Electoral votes are awarded to states and the District of Columbia based on the number of legislators in the Senate and House, and the distribution changes with every census to reflect population gains and losses. For example, Washington state has two senators and nine House members. Thus, it has 11 electoral votes.

Bush won in 2000 with 271 electoral votes; he would get 278 this year by carrying the same states.

Some founders saw the Electoral College as a kind of nominating convention, offering up many candidates, none of whom could win a majority. In that case, the House picks the president.

	George W. Bush won 271 electoral votes in 2000.

Yet the predominance of two political parties made Electoral College majorities the norm; the House hasn't been involved in a presidential election since 1824.

It is more likely, analysts said, that the Electoral College will favor a candidate who received fewer votes. That's happened with four presidents: John Quincy Adams in 1824, Rutherford Hayes in 1876, Benjamin Harrison in 1888 and Bush in 2000.

Efforts to abolish the nation's least popular college in one sweep face a significant hurdle, analysts said — an amendment to the Constitution, which would need approval by three-fourths of the states. Several analysts said too many states have a vested interest in retaining the Electoral College.

Reformers have higher hopes that individual states will change, such as the Colorado effort. Two states, Maine and Nebraska, already have different systems, awarding an electoral vote to a candidate that carries a congressional district even if he lost statewide.

Some fear that a patchwork system — in which different states allocate electors in different ways — would reward the bigger states that retain a winner-take-all system.

Allocating electoral votes based on percentage of popular voters also draws another objection: Strong third-party candidates, such as Ross Perot in 1992, could pick off enough electors to prevent a majority and throw the decision to the House. Theoretically, Perot's 19 percent showing would have given him at least 100 electoral votes, denying Bill Clinton a majority.

Popular elections also might encourage a proliferation of candidates, further undermining the party system and making it less likely anyone could win a majority. "It's better than the possible alternatives," said Walter Berns, a resident scholar with the American Enterprise Institute. "What are the alternatives? That's the question."

Seattle Times staff contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2004 The Seattle Times Company

E-mail this article

Print this article

Search archive

More nation & world headlines...