Sane Opposition to the Electoral College on Constitution Day

Our apologies for not having Constitution Day material here at Postmodern Conservative. I can amend things a little by reporting on the talk held at Washington and Lee University, where the esteemed presidency scholar Michael Nelson spoke. His talk was a general review of what the convention accomplished and why, but the most interesting moment was his answer to an audience member’s “What about the Electoral College?” question.

He began by saying that our experience in 2000 revealed a serious practical barrier to getting rid of the Electoral College: if a national popular election were to be nearly tied, say, a difference of some 10,000 or fewer votes, all the legal and practical nightmares we faced with deciding things in two or three counties in Florida would extend to thousands of counties nationwide. So, if we don’t isolate recounts the way the Electoral College tends to, anything near a tie might result in the long wrangle/crisis of a disputed election.

Nelson mentioned quite briefly, however, that we might overcome that practical problem by instituting a popular vote for the presidency done the way we do the House, district-by-district and winner-take-all. I guess he’s thinking we could just use all the House districts as they stand.

And he clearly indicated that if that reform, or another, could still “isolate recounts” in a popular vote tie, he would be for it. He pointed out the dismaying fact that even in this close race, there are only about eight states where your vote is likely to matter, and hence, where Obama and Romney are really campaigning.

He’s got a point there. I don’t worry about the Electoral College, nor fret about its less than perfectly democratic character, but I’m not attached to it either. I could go for this district idea.