Too Hundred 7 Tea (cont.)

Since 1826 an elector has been chosen primarily, “…on the basis of their long service to their party, because of their financial donations to party or candidate, or out of a wish to have an ethically or politically balance elector slate” (Longley and Peirce 1996: 97). The esteemed college where the Founders envisioned debates inspecting a candidate’s virtue, republicanism and independence, to ensue is now nothing more than “…a state-by-state collection of political hacks and fat cats” (Longley and Peirce 1996: 98). The purpose of the college as a type of intermediary interview has been undermined by the political parties is has unintentionally created. It is now just a collection of electors who can constitutionally vote for whomever they choose without regard for the public’s opinion or their own party.

There are the two things the Founders did not foresee happening in the government which already perform the intended purpose of the Electoral College. The political parties which force the candidate to get a majority vote of the populace, and the Primaries and National Conventions. Each party’s National Convention performs the informal interview and judge of character that the electors were charged with executing (Longley and Peirce 1996: 90). The Primaries are mock-campaigns where many candidates are trying to persuade the public that he/she is the right candidate for president. After all the party-held primary elections are held, the candidates not carrying enough votes, and in essence who would be a bad choice for the party and country, drop out. The politically experienced parties ensure that the otherwise inexperienced and ‘uninformed’ public are presented with two candidates that would be appropriate for the office of President. If the original purpose of the Electoral College has been stripped away I believe that electors should be constitutionally required to follow the opinion of the populace.

Too Hundred 7 Tea

This year I have noticed more newsreels shown that question who the electors actually are and what it is they do in the election. One hears the media throw around the number 270 but what is its significance?

Two hundred seventy refers to the number of electoral votes a candidate needs to win a majority of the 538 votes in the Electoral College. The majority winner becomes President.

The College is set up similarly to Congress; there is a static number and a number based on population. The Constitutional minimum is three, two for a state’s number of senators and at least one for the number of House Representatives. The Census determines the population for each state, but as The Electoral College Primer points out, “[i]f a presidential election falls in the same year as a census, the initial election of the new decade is governed by the apportionments based on the census a full decade before, and the new census figures will not go into effect until the presidential election four years subsequent” (Longley and Peirce 1996: 94).

This was the case during the 2000 Presidential Election which ran on apportionments from 1990. The new millennium was also a census year, but the change in a state’s population was not reflected until the 2004 election. For a country that stresses the need of justice I find it ironic that the highest office in the United States government can be elected on such unjust grounds. Had the College been apportioned justly for the 2000 election, the past eight years might have been in the hands of a different president.

Virtue?

The previous blog has explained a little about the general origin of the Electoral College, but what about today? Does the bureaucratic institution work as intended by the Founding Fathers?

Upon leaving office, George Washington warned the nation against creating factions. (Spalding 1997: N/A) His warning was not heeded due to the external warfare between Great Britain and France that divided the nation, and as a result each side formed a political party. There are now two main parties in the Twenty-First Century that dominate American politics, the Democrats and Republicans (Barone 2001: 80). It is apparent that disunity among the people is what Washington was trying to avoid, but an interesting argument concerning the Electoral College is brought to light by Michael Barone. Is the College an institution that forces the Presidential Candidate into winning a majority of voters? Michael Barone certainly believes that this is a benefit to the system. He believes that because a candidate must win the majority vote of the College, it forces him/her to run their campaign in a way that will attract voters and not impose his/her political ideology on the rest of the population (Barone 2001: 80).

Personally, I agree with this argument because yes, a candidate should run his/her campaign and presidency in a way that does not force the populace into succumbing to his/her irrational political views. The subliminal obligation is in accord with the Founder’s principle of character and virtue. It must be remembered though that the candidate needs only to win a majority in the Electoral College. The people’s majority vote ultimately does not matter because it is up to their electors.