by Congressman Lou Frey, Jr.
I received a number of interesting responses to my articles on the electoral college. First, a fellow author and classmate of mine at the University of Michigan Law School, Donnelly W. Hadden said:
Especially getting a chance to express my thanks for the wonderful serial letters on the history of the electoral college. Are you going to forecast what might become of it? There are four options out there that I’ve heard of: (1) do nothing, let it alone. Winner-takes all state by state disenfranchising millions of voters. So be it. (2) distribute the electoral votes pro rate to the popular vote in each state. This might achieve rough justice in a big state with lots of electoral votes; there the data-base is big enough to apportion them closely in accordance to the popular vote, but in a state with only 3 electoral votes it could still disenfranchise a huge minority. (3) Abolish the College altogether (Constitutional Amendment) and just go by total popular vote. Impractical in 1789 but easy to do now with computers. Each vote counts, no matter from where. With no more “safe” states, the candidates would have to campaign everywhere. So be it. (4) this new “Pennsylvania Plan” whereby 2 two at-large (Senatorial) electors would be chosen winner-takes-both, but each congressional district would elect its own elector. This could lead to the breakdown of the two-party system. A third party (Greens, Libertarians, Reform Party) with insufficient clout nationally to be significant could, by focusing on a few districts achieve a local plurality and have some electors. Could be enough in a close election to hold the balance of power and deliver the Presidency (or Vice Presidency) to whichever major candidate made the best offer.
Also, that system could give birth to regional parties with the same effect. We have seen such regional parties before, with lots of popular votes but few electoral votes because they couldn’t carry any whole states.
If all they had to do was carry some congressional districts they would have had lots of clout.
It’s fun to theorize. Keep up the good work, and like I pleaded, publish the collection.
An e-mail friend of mine, Jayson Bloser, said the following regarding the interstate compact theory:
There are nine states who have signed onto an interstate compact that would require the electors in those states to vote for the candidate who receives the popular vote nationally. It only goes into effect if the states who have signed on have a total of the 270 votes needed to win the presidency. Currently the total electors for these states is 139. I believe that this will be another failed attempt to change or do away with the Electoral College. A few more states may sign on to this but it will not be enough to get to 270. I agree with you that it should stay the same as it is now. The pros outweigh the cons.
Retired Senator James T. Broyhill of North Carolina sent me an e-mail, and said the following:
Before I spend the time to start looking I thought I would ask you the question. Has anyone done a study of how past elections would have fared if we counted the electoral vote by Congressional Districts, with the extra two going to the candidate who won a majority of Congressional Districts? (The answer is yes.)
Counting the Electoral vote in this manner does raise an interesting question and that is how it would change the dynamics of a campaign for Congress in the close or marginal districts. There are many of those these days, but there are at least ¼ of the Congressional Districts that will go either way. That number or percentage used to be much higher, of course.
For those who are interested in continuing to learn more about the electoral college I would recommend going to writings by the outstanding political scientist from Virginia Larry Sabato or researching the electoral college under the congressional research services http://www.loc.gov/crsinfo/.