Why We Must Defend the Electoral College

by Trent England

Is the Electoral College “racist” and a “scam” as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez claims? Or was Alexander Hamilton right when he declared that “if it be not perfect, it is at least excellent”? In this Broadside, Trent England explains why we have the Electoral College, how it shapes American politics, and why preserving it is necessary to maintain our republican form of government. With an organized campaign trying to hijack the constitution’s state-by-state system in favor of a direct election, now is the time for Americans to come to the defense of the Electoral College.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction

38 pages, Paperback

First published May 5, 2020

Reviews

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

Those who are upset with the results of an election where their candidate lost will thrash around for something to blame other than their candidate will usually get around to attacking the Electoral College. For the most part they do not have any understanding of the purpose of the Electoral College or have any clue about how it functions. Why We Must Defend the Electoral College (Encounter Broadside No 62) by Trent England explains this and more and destroys claims of racism (a favorite of the left these days) or a scam make no logical sense. Basically, the Electoral College compensates for population densities to prevent just a few areas with large populations from dominating an election by popular vote disenfranchising (a popular word these days) most of the country's population and would result in candidates only campaigning in those few areas instead of trying to appeal to American citizens across the entire country. But don't take my word for it, read this book.

[海刚 周 · Rating 2 out of 5]

Made some interesting arguments with factual mistakes

The author made some arguments in support of the electoral college which align with my own analysis and thoughts about the EC, and I largely agree with the benefits the author laird out. However, there are some factual mistakes in this very short essay, including listing Maine and Vermont as one of the original states and stating that 11 states were represented in the Constitution Convention. The mistakes are beyond my comprehension.

[Arensb · Rating 3 out of 5]

The Electoral College is a rather strange American institution. People campaign for individual presidential candidates, and when people cast their votes, the ballot lists the names of those candidates. But behind the scenes, what's actually happening is that people elect Electors, who in turn vote for president.

England makes perhaps the best attempt I've seen so far at laying out the reasons Americans should continue to elect presidents this way. He goes into more detail than anyone else I've read on this topic to summarize the founders' thinking when they chose to use an Electoral College, rather than any number of other alternatives. I think he touches on pretty much every argument I've seen for retaining the Electoral College, and has expressed them better than many people. On the whole, if anyone asks what the conservative case is for retaining the Electoral College, you can do a lot worse than recommending this book.

Having said that, there are some important omissions. For all that England spends time explaining historical reasons for the Electoral College, he leaves it to the reader to decide which 18th-century reasons still matter in the 21st century. He does, in places, discuss circumstances that have changed, such as the rise of political parties and the 12th Amendment, so the omission stands out.

He talks in general terms about densely-populated areas, and how changing the electoral system would shift power from rural areas to urban ones, but he never shows his math. For instance, he never mentions that there were something like 5 million Trump voters in California whose vote effectively didn't matter because of the Electoral College. He gives the reader the impression that if all city dwellers voted one way and all country dwellers voted the other, that the city dwellers would carry the election handily. That's a standard conservative talking point. But he never backs it up with numbers, possibly because city dwellers can't determine an election on their own.

Finally, any system for electing the US president can also be applied at the state level. There's no reason a state couldn't use an electoral college to elect a governor, and the fact that no state does so is, to my mind, a powerful argument against electoral colleges. But any time someone says, "Electing the president by popular vote will lead to outcomes A, B, C", we can ask, do A, B, C happen at the state level? For instance, England says that getting rid of the Electoral College will lead to the rise of third parties, vote-splitting, and electing the president by small pluralities, rather than by a majority. Do we see this in gubernatorial elections? I haven't noticed it, so this seems like unfounded worrying, rather than a real concern we should worry about.

In the end, while England has a good try at defending the Electoral College, in the end he's not all that convincing. The fact that this is otherwise one of the best defenses I've read means that I doubt there's a good argument out there that I haven't run across yet.

[Dallas Koehn · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a brief, very readable guide offering some very coherent, historically-grounded reasons for loving and defending the Electoral College. Being Trent England, it leans a bit right and a certain distaste for the other side of the aisle leaks out here and there. It's far from a right-wing diatribe, however - it's thoughtful and well-written and reality-based. I disagree with England about many things - including the Electoral College - but this was easily one of my smarter purchases lately and I'll no doubt refer back to it regularly in the future.

If you lean conservative and want to better understand why your favorite talking heads feel strongly about keeping this system, you can digest this in an afternoon and be annoying people on social media by sundown. If you're eager to abolish the EC, this may be the best, most concise summary of the arguments you're going to need to resolve in order to make your case effectively. England doesn't waste energy throwing out red meat or drawing on marginal sources to make his case. He has a point of view, to be sure, but - in this brief analysis, at least - considers that viewpoint best served by clarity and historical elucidation.

There were a few moments I halfway reconsidered my own thinking on the topic. Even more frightening, I found myself kind of hoping he writes more like this on related topics - and I'm WAY on the other side of the political spectrum. Kumbaya.

This thoughtful little volume is more than worth the modest price and minimal time investment. Whatever your political convictions, you'll walk away smarter and better informed. God knows we could all use more of that these days.