In November 2006, approximately fourteen years ago, an IHS student named Annette S. wrote an article for the Tattler entitled “The Electoral College: An Anachronism?” The debate over the electoral college gained most attention in recent decades following the 2016 general election, in which former secretary of state Hillary Clinton garnered a greater percentage of the popular vote but lost the election to current president Trump, who claimed the Electoral College points. Now, with the results of this year’s especially contentious election expected soon, the same concerns have resurfaced. Democrats wonder if it’s fair for Trump to be able to win the presidency again using the Electoral College with or without winning the popular vote. No matter the outcome of the election, the question remains: is it time to rethink the decisions of our Founding Fathers?
Much of the problem with the current system stems from the early organization of the United States. Shortly after declaring independence from Britain, the thirteen autonomous states each drafted their own constitution, preventing any real centralized organization despite the efforts of the weak Continental Congress. At first, Pennsylvania eliminated its executive branch of government, leaving it without a governor for its first few years of statehood. Even after the Constitution was ratified, the states did not fully see themselves as a united nation. Georgians and Vermonters had little in common other than their mutual victory over the British.
The simplified layout of the American electoral system is that both of our legislative bodies are chosen through direct election, meaning the candidate who receives a plurality of the popular vote wins a seat. On the contrary, Annette’s article explains the president of the United States (“POTUS”) is voted in by a number of electoral votes assigned to each state. This distorts the influence of any one vote on the outcome of the election, as shown by the states that routinely vote for one political party or another for example, New York State has not voted Republican in national elections since 1988. Fearing mob rule, the founding fathers established a system that would prevent the uneducated masses from determining the turnout of an election. Annette recalls,
The founders who argued for true popular sovereignty were overruled by those who believed that educated, upper-class men were the most trustworthy members of the population. They thus decided that members of an elite assembly would have to act as public servants and convene to make the choice that would best serve the common good.
Clearly, the first political decision-makers in our country’s history had values very different from our own. Many of them owned enslaved people and never imagined that a Black, female, or Indigenous person would participate in their political system. Persistent voter suppression has aligned with that perspective, and it’s hard not to wonder if that precedent can be overcome. The debate over the founding of our country and its lasting structures encompasses more than the limits of the electoral college: it brings into question the founders’ narrow perspectives as wealthy, white settlers on Indigenous lands.
Annette ultimately argues that, as our country has evolved from one in which participation in government is limited to landholding males, so should our electoral system. Echoing recent criticism, she asserts that our elections must give equal weight to each vote. Annette would surely be dismayed at the outcome of the 2016 election and use it as proof of the foul play she warned against twelve years prior.
The opportunity we have as 21st century Americans looking back on a rich and convoluted history is invaluable. It can start locally, by exploring the perspectives of the people who inhabited Tompkins County before us, whether it be fourteen or 250 years in the past. Such analysis encourages the questioning of both modern and antiquated values and motivates us to evaluate our role in an ever-changing society.