With the presidential election behind us and the next one still far off, this may be a good time to give the Electoral College a dispassionate look.
In the United States, the popular vote doesn’t decide who will be president; the Electoral College does.
The number of electors from each state is not determined by its population but by the size of its congressional delegation. As each state has two senators, a voter in a less populous state has more power in selecting the president than a vote in a more populous state.
For example, California, with a population of about 40,000,000, has 52 congressmen, while Wyoming, with a population of less than 600,000, has one congressman. But both have two senators, meaning California gets 54 electors and Wyoming gets three.
So, in presidential elections, a Wyoming voter counts about the same as 3.7 California voters. Do the math.
Unsurprisingly, many Californians would like to see the Electoral College abolished.
It could happen, of course, but the same people who created the Electoral College wrote the rules for abolishing it. Simply put, two-thirds of each house of Congress and three-quarters of all the state legislatures would have to agree to the change. In other words, the less populous states would have to vote to reduce their own power.
Anything can happen, but that seems unlikely.
So how did we get here?
Before the United States of America, there were just the states. Think of them as being single.
In 1777, the states signed the Articles of Confederation and became the United States of America. However, the Articles were very weak, with no president, judiciary or tax power.
You could say the states were going steady or engaged but not yet married.
By 1787, it was widely agreed that the Articles were not working well, so delegates from the states met to discuss ways to make a closer union that would be mutually beneficial.
The most divisive issue at that meeting, soon to be called the Constitutional Convention, was how to apportion power among the states.
Think of it as the prenuptial meeting.
It’s not unusual for prospective spouses to be wary of marriage. Some get cold feet. Things soon got a little heated.
On June 30, 1787, Gunning Bedford Jr., representing Delaware, made it clear that the less populous states were not going to be bullied into accepting a central government in which representation was strictly proportional to population, saying:
“Will it be said that an inequality of power will not result from an inequality of votes? Give the opportunity, and ambition will not fail to abuse it. The whole History of mankind proves it ….The Large States dare not dissolve the Confederation. If they do, the small ones will find some foreign ally of more honor and good faith who will take them by the hand and do them justice.”
The notes of the Convention for that day are here.
Mr. Bedford went on to clarify that he was not making a threat. In context, the threat that he was not making might have been something like inviting the British to help Delaware defend itself against, say, Pennsylvania. This was provocative language, as the Revolutionary War had ended only six years earlier.
Mr. Bedford’s speech marked a turning point. After things cooled down a bit, the large states gave up their demand for strict proportionality and agreed to a series of compromises that took into account the views of the small states.
One of the many compromises made was the disproportionate Electoral College. Another was the high bar set for Amendments described above.
And so, on June 21, 1788, the states ratified the Constitution. That, of course, was the wedding day.
So here we are. What is to be done?
As a Californian, I find it helpful to keep the following points in mind.
First, if the Electoral College had not been created, the small states probably would have been runaway brides, leaving the big states standing at the altar. The country as we know it would not exist.
Second, when Californians applied for statehood in 1849, they knew all about the Electoral College and agreed to follow the rules of the Constitution. They said, “I do.”
Third, the population of California in 1850 was around 93,000. Of the 31 states, only two had fewer people, yet California and New York, with more than 3,000,000 people, were allotted two United States senators each. Few Californians were kvetching then. It was a good deal.
Fourth, California today is the richest, most populous, and most powerful of the fifty states. For us to complain now about the terms of the prenuptial agreement or, worse, to threaten to change its terms against the wishes of the less powerful states would be unbecoming. Not without justification, such behavior could be denounced as bullying and controlling. In this real-world telenovela, we would be casting ourselves in the role of the abusive spouse.
Fifth, Mr. Bedford’s warning that the large states might abuse their power over the small states may be more relevant today than it was then. After all, in the early days of our Republic, the federal government’s purview was largely restricted to a handful of matters, such as fiscal policy and foreign relations. In those days, the states had most of the power.
Today, the federal government even regulates the diameter of macaroni.
Sixth, I try to remember that the presidential candidate who wins the popular vote isn’t always the best choice. I find this thought comforting.
So, what should we do about the Electoral College? I suggest we get used to it.
It occurs to me that the keen-eyed reader may ask, “How about divorce?”
While metaphors can be misleading, if we stretch this one just a bit, I guess you could say the closest thing to a divorce would be the act of secession. Several states tried that in 1861. The matter was settled out of court.
Scott H. Chambers is a cartoonist, writer, co-author of “I, Spastic: The Autobiography of Neil Marcus,” and songwriter who lives in Encinitas.
