There Has to be a Better Way to Choose a President

Twelve people stood on stage last night, each trying to explain why they should be the next President of the United States. But after yet another three hours of back and forth between a dozen candidates, have we learned enough to choose a president?

We were in a similar situation four years ago. At that time, we were fairly certain that Hillary Clinton was going to be the Democratic nominee. Meanwhile, the Republican race, with its multitude of characters, seemed like a farce. No one really stood out. At the time, Donald Trump has a substantial following, but not a majority of Republican voters. He gained his support mostly do to name recognition, and turning the Republican debates into Jerry Springer-like events, that many found entertaining.

Over the next few months, as primaries and caucuses were held, the experienced politicians in the Republican field found that they could not put their egos aside, and Trump racked up the delegates, based on name recognition and his entertainment value. By time the dust settled, and the two major candidates selected, many in the electorate asked, is this the best we could do.

That questions haunts the process of selecting a president to this day. Is this the best we can do?  The process is easy to criticize. It takes too long. It’s tiring for potential voters. It’s superficial. It’s too expensive. It’s too divisive. It gives a small minority of people way too much power in influencing the outcome. And in the end, it is just way too possible for the choice of most American voters to be ignored, as the person losing the popular vote can still wind up being the president.

It’s no mystery why in many elections, voters complain that they are choosing the lesser of two evils.

Surely, we can do better.

While the Democrats were engaging in their debates here in the United States, a fascinating crisis of leadership unfolded in the United Kingdom.  A new Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, has failed to convince fellow members of Parliament that leaving the European Union without concluding a deal upon which both the U.K. and the E.U. could agree would be a satisfactory outcome of Brexit. As a result, Johnson lost vote after vote in Parliament, and even saw enough of his party’s members defect to the opposition to rob him of a majority in Parliament. There was discussion of holding an election to choose a new Parliament. What was astonishing was that no one in the United Kingdom even questioned that such an election could be completed in five weeks.

Five weeks to choose an entirely new government in the U.K.; meanwhile, the campaign to choose a new president in the United States persists for more than two years. How can that possibly be?  Do we really need all that time to make a reasoned decision?  Some might even argue that the U.S. presidential campaign is never-ending. Indeed, President Trump continued to hold political rallies almost immediately after being sworn into office.

Is this really the best we can do?

Richard Nixon once said of running for president, that first one had to run to the right as far as he could to court Republican voters to nominate him. Then, during the general election, that same person had to run to the center as fast as he could, to convince independent voters to choose him over his Democratic rival.

It’s no wonder why American politicians are accused of flip-flopping.

To fix the system would go beyond tweaking what the United States already has. Indeed, simply abolishing the Electoral College would not be enough. The problem with the U.S. system includes our primary system, which takes too long, gives too much influence to two states with small populations, entrenches the two party system, and leaves a large number of voters without a voice in nominating the presidential candidates.

The first big contest of the nomination season is the Iowa Caucuses.  Iowa represents less than one percent of the total U.S. population. Yet, presidential candidates flock to Iowa early every four years to court the state’s voters. Especially when a candidate trails in the national polls, if that candidate can somehow convince Iowa voters to choose him or her, that candidate can experience a huge burst in popularity and news coverage. At times, a win in Iowa can create enough momentum to propel a candidate to the nomination.

Similarly, the first primary election takes place in New Hampshire, where the population is roughly one-third that of Iowa. An victory in the first election of the primary season can be as equally powerful, especially for a dark horse candidate.

But why do states with such small populations have such a big influence over the major parties’ nomination?  The short answer is tradition. Other states have tried to schedule their contests before Iowa and New Hampshire. But each time, the major parties threaten to discipline those states if they do so. For example, the major parties have threatened not to recognize any delegates selected in contests that occur before Iowa and New Hampshire.

The argument is that small states would otherwise get lost in the shuffle, if states with larger populations, such as California and Florida, have all of the influence over the nominations. But why is that a good thing?  Some may even argue that giving states with lower populations so much influence over the presidential nominations goes against the democratic principle of majority rule.

Moreover, the current nomination system is built around the assumption of two major parties: Democrats and Republicans. Democrats, of course, tend to lean left, or liberal, in their political views, while Republicans lean right, or conservative.  But in the last few decades, the number of U.S. voters who identify themselves as either Democrats or Republicans has fallen. A 2017 Gallup poll showed 31% of Americans identified themselves as Democrats, 24% as Republicans, and 42% as independent of any political party. Confining the nomination process to just the Democratic and Republican parties means an extremely large percentage of the U.S. electorate has no say in that process.  Moreover, because each party has a definite leaning on the political spectrum, this means the more extreme voters in each party have a disproportionate say in who gets nominated. The nominees, then, tend to be more liberal or more conservative than the population at large. Centrist candidates are at a big disadvantage in the current system, even though most American voters tend to be more moderate than liberal or conservative.

It’s no wonder, then, why there is often wide-spread disappointment in the two major nominees for president.

Those who may favor third party candidates get ridiculed. A nominee from the Libertarian or Green Party has no chance to win. So why waste your vote on a third party the argument goes. And so, independent voters, who make up the largest block of voters, are the ones who have to compromise the most when choosing between the two major parties’ nominees.

Why does it have to be like this?

Of course, the final blow to democratic principles occurs when in the end, the choice of most U.S. voters is ignored, and the loser winds of becoming the president. This is the result of the Electoral College. To summarize, the reality of the presidential election is that there are 51 separate elections, one in each state and one in the District of Columbia. Each state is given an amount of electors equal to the number of senators and representatives that states send to Congress, with the District of Columbia receiving three. The result of this system is to give voters in states with smaller populations a greater say in who becomes the president. Thus, the loser of the popular vote can still become president provided he or she can win in enough states. This has happened five times in the history of the United States. But the last two times have happened within 16 years of each other.  With Republicans having appeal to many of those smaller states, they have something of an advantage in the Electoral College system. Therefore, what was once thought of as a rare oddity of the American system threatens to become the norm in elections to come.

In sum, for a country that prides itself on being a democratic republic, its method of choosing a chief executive goes against many democratic principles.

In recent years, there has been a growing cry to eliminate the Electoral College. Some states have passed laws to give their states’ electors to whomever wins the national popular vote. The problem with concentrating on the Electoral College is that it fails to address all of the issues with the entire process.

A far more satisfying approach is to do away with the entire nomination system and Electoral College. The United States should adopt a system much like Louisiana’s non-partisan primary. In such a system, two elections are held. The first is a primary, in which every candidate runs, regardless of party affiliation. If somebody receives a majority (greater than 50%) of the vote, then we have our winner and the second election is cancelled. But if no one wins a majority in the primary, then the top two candidates face each other in the general election, held about one month later. Several countries, such as France, employ a system like this.

Such a system cuts down on the length of the presidential campaign, thus ending the non-stop campaigning we have today. Because it is a national election, no one region would have greater influence over the others. Because it is non-partisan, centrists and third party candidates have a greater chance of winning, meaning voters can freely vote their conscience, instead of choosing the lesser of two evils. It is a more democratic system, and likely to result in candidates that reflect the views of a larger proportion of the U.S. population.

By: William J. Kovatch, Jr.

This Election Has Shown It Is Time to Strengthen the Electoral College

Guess what.  The U.S. Constitution does not guarantee the right of the people to elect their president directly.   As any middle-schooler can tell you, our system is based on a College of Electors, selected by each state, who in turn have the authority to cast the first ballot for president.  In fact, the Constitution does not even guarantee the right of the people to select their electors.

Section 1 of Article 2 of the Constitution provides, “Each State shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors . . . .”  (Emphasis added).  Although the Electoral College has been modified from time to time through amendments to the Constitution, none of those amendments explicitly guarantees the right of the people to vote either for the president or for an elector.

Put simply, the Constitution establishes a system where each state chooses electors to send to the Electoral College.  The number of electors is equal to the number of Representative to which that state is entitled in the House of Representative, plus the number of Senators.  In addition, the District of Columbia, which is not a state and is not entitled to any representation in Congress, is provided with no more than the same number of electors as the least populous states.  The electors meet in their respective states and vote, in separate ballots, for president and vice president.  The results are transmitted to Congress.

A person must win a majority of votes from the Electoral College to be elected president or vice president.  If no candidate wins a majority of votes for president, the House of Representatives has the task of choosing the president.  But, the House votes by state.  Each state is given one vote, and the Representatives can only for one of the three top vote getters from the Electoral College.  In the Senate, if there is no Electoral College majority for vice president, Senators vote for one of the two top vote getters. 

Why did the Founding Fathers establish such a system to select the chief executive of the United States?  As with many of the structures created through the Constitution, the Electoral College was created out of a fear of concentrating too much power in one person or one group of people.  To put simply, the Founding Fathers had just fought a revolution to break away from the rule of a tyrant. 

But as John Madison noted in Federalist No. 10, tyranny could include an “overbearing majority.”  Madison warned that a group of citizens, “whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole” could unite to push “some common impulse or passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.”  Madison recognized that people are fallible and selfish, and that this would cause differences of opinions and interests.  A group of people, to whom he referred as “factions,” could join together to pursue a common zeal over their particular opinion or even of a particular leader.  And thus divided into different parties, they could develop “mutual animosity” and attempt “to vex or oppress each other” rather than “to cooperate for their common good.”  Madison’s driving point was that the tyranny of a majority could work to oppress and infringe on the rights of a minority.  For these reasons, he, and other Founding Fathers, opposed pure democracy.

Instead, Madison argued for the creation of a body of people chosen by the citizens through which the views of the public could be passed.  The hope was that by choosing wise representatives, the good of the public as a whole could prevail over parochial interests and passions.  That is, Madison argued for the creation of a republic.

Yet, through the Constitution, the Founding Fathers did not create a purely parliamentarian form of government.  That is, they did not create a government where the legislature chose the person or group of people who would execute the laws.  As Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist No. 88, the Founding Fathers wanted to make the chief executive officer, that is the president, independent from the legislature.  That is, they wanted the president to be free of any taint or influence from a pre-existing body.  It was thought that if the president were chosen by Congress, the president might be tempted to suppress his duty to pursue the good of the whole to the temptation to please Congress in order to preserve his tenure in office.

Putting the two fears together, that is the fear that a majority can itself be tyrannical, and the fear that an executive who is chosen by the legislature would be dependent upon the legislature and thus sacrifice the pursuit of the common good, the Founding Fathers devised a system whereby the people would choose a group who would come together only once for the sole purpose of selecting a chief executive, and then be disbanded.  The hope was that this smaller group of people, which we call the Electoral College, would give serious deliberation to the qualities needed for leadership, and choose a wise and virtuous leader.

In that way, the Electoral College was meant to protect the new republic from the dangers of demagoguery.  That is, a charismatic person could influence the general public by inflaming passions instead of reason.  Once in power, a demagogue could then trample on the rights of the minority.

Under the system envisioned by the Founding Fathers through the Constitution, the role of the people was no to select a particular person to be their president.  Rather, they were to select a group of people wise enough to select a person to be the president.

Unfortunately, in practice this is not was happens.  Through tradition, over time, the states have mostly chosen to hold popular elections where that state’s entire delegation of Electors would go to the winner of the popular vote.  In all but Maine and Nebraska, the states have chosen a winner take all approach. That is, each candidate nominates a slate of Electors, and the winner has his or her chosen Electors named to the Electoral College.  Thus, instead of choosing a group of people, individually, to in turn select our president, we vote for the person we want to be president, and the state’s Electors go to that person.  This turns the presidential election into nothing more than fifty-one different elections.

This system, which has grown out of tradition and not out of any constitutional requirement, has some unintended consequences.  First, it makes political parties indispensable.  Second, it distorts the popular vote.

With respect to political parties, in order to win the presidency, a person must be able to garner a few hundred people who will be loyal and vote for him when the Electoral College meets.  This means that a candidate must have an organization, and it must be on a national scale.  This is why it is virtually impossible for independent or third party candidates to win the U.S. presidency.

With respect to the popular vote, each state is guaranteed at least three Electors.  But, there is no guarantee that population is evenly spread across the states.  Thus, in less populous states, like Montana and North Dakota, voters have a disproportionately large say in who will become president.  It also means that it is entirely possible for a person to receive more popular votes for president, but because those votes may be concentrated in one state, lose the Electoral College count.  This has happened three times in U.S. history.

But, there is yet a third unintended consequence.  This system as it is currently configured is more vulnerable to demagoguery.  Specifically, most people today receive their news through television.  Television is a medium that thrives on images and short messages.  To get a message across, particularly on news programs, images must elicit an emotional response and do so in a short period of time.  Thus, the ten second sound bite reigns.  Television is not a medium conducive to a reasonable deliberation of complex issues.

We see this now in news shows and political fora.  Formats are not meant to encourage an intelligent dialogue as they are to encourage shouting, loud disagreement and entertainment that targets the short attention span.  In order to prevail, a person must look good, and have a catchy slogan.

But it is this manipulation of passions and emotions that motivated the Founding Fathers to create the Electoral College in the first place.  And indeed, this 2016 election has demonstrated the very danger that gave our Founding Fathers nightmares.  Both major political parties have been manipulated by demagoguery, and thus have nominated candidates with which many in the general public are completely dissatisfied.  Name recognition and entertainment have become more important factors in selecting candidates than a serious discussion of the issues that face this country.  Thus, this year many U.S. voters are left with the choice of voting for a candidate they don’t like in order to stop a candidate they hate.

The answer to this dilemma may simply be to strengthen the Electoral College, and have it return more to the roots of what the Founding Fathers intended.  That is, the U.S. public should go back to selecting a group of people who will in turn select the president rather than voting for the president directly.

One way to strengthen the Electoral College would be to eliminate the winner take all system.  Rather than vote for a single person, and all of a state’s Electors go to that person, voters should be forced to choose the Electors directly and by name.  If a state has six Electors, then the voters in that state should select six people to attend the Electoral College.  The names of the presidential candidates themselves should not be on the ballot.

The elections should not permit voters in a single sweep to select a slate of candidates. Each candidate should be selected separately.  Moreover, the candidates for Electors should not be grouped by party or by whom they support.  Indeed, nowhere on the ballot should a political party appear.  They should be listed either randomly or alphabetically.  This would have the effect of having a voter actually research the candidates for Electors, and determine if that person would be wise enough to in turn select the president.  If a person wants to select Electors all from one party, then have that voter research and know that information before coming to the ballot box.

Moreover, election of the Electors should permit vote stacking.  That is, if a state entitled to six Electors, then each voter in that state should be entitled to six votes and use them as they please.  If one voter wants to use all six votes on a single candidate to ensure that a particular viewpoint has a seat at the table, then so be it.

Finally, the Electoral College should not be a single day event where the Electors simply cast a vote.  To the contrary, it should be a multiday affair, where each Elector has an opportunity to say either what issues they find important, what qualities in a candidate they find important, or which particular person they may want as their president.

Yes, these proposals would remove the choice of presidency one step further away from voters.  But that does not make it undemocratic.  Voters will still have choice and a say in their chief executive.  But that choice would be less likely left to the winds of passions, ignorance and demagoguery.  It would instead make the process more deliberative and serious.

By: William J. Kovatch, Jr.