Electoral College: flawed, but working

Presidential selection was postponed to the final proceedings of the 1787 Constitutional Convention. Agreement on an election formula could not be agreed upon earlier. Both the Virginia Plan, the blueprint for the future constitution, and the New Jersey Plan provided for a chief executive elected by the legislature.

Alternative procedures included (1) election by all eligible voters and, (2) "electors" chosen by the states. Initially the convention's committee of the whole voted for legislative selection (a seven-year, nonrenewable term of office) but reversed itself and chose presidential electors selected by the states based upon population and Senate seats in the Congress. Under this procedure a winning candidate was required to secure 50 percent of the electoral votes plus one.

Popular election of the president was rejected primarily on the basis of the framers' fear that popular election could be influenced by demigods and the spikes of public opinion which influenced the common man. Shays' Rebellion immediately prior to the convention was very much on their mind.

Legislative election was abandoned primarily to protect presidential independence and the preservation of the "separation of powers." The convention settled upon the Electoral College alternative, which had been introduced and advocated by Alexander Hamilton of New York. National political parties did not evolve prior to the constitutional convention's submission of the document to the 13 states for ratification.

Early on, presidential electors were chosen for their political prominence rather than selection by political parties. Several political leaders at the convention believed the presidential election would be thrown into the House of Representatives after Washington's tenure due to the difficulty to achieve an electoral majority. In fact, this happened in the election of 1800.

For almost 40 years after Washington's two terms, presidential candidates were selected by their political party caucuses in the House of Representatives. It was not until the Andrew Jackson presidency that the national party conventions became the vehicle for nominating presidential candidates. It would take another 150 years to develop a party primary system to nominate candidates for the presidency.

The political party primary system very much mirrors the Electoral College selection system, and until lately the "winner takes all" was the model. Today the Democratic Party allocates its votes in the primaries on the basis of the percentage of the popular vote. For the Republicans, the winner takes all the primary votes.

I believe that the majority of American voters would choose a popular vote system to elect a president. Public opinion polls evidence this choice. Popular election of the president is not around the corner. Political parties, interest groups, states with large populations and those with small populations support the status quo.

California, Florida, Texas and New York would lose political leverage without the Electoral College system. Today, a select number of populous states, 11 or 12 voting together, can elect a president on their own. It is within this group the battle takes place to win the presidency.

In a popular vote system, all states are in play for both parties as every vote counts. Given the cost and organizational requirements to undertake a presidential election which generally focuses on key states, "front-line states," a popular vote election would greatly expand costs and organizational needs. The last candidate to visit every state during the election was Richard Nixon in 1960. Today only two states, Maine and Nebraska, divide their Electoral College votes based upon the popular vote.

Unless we have another 2000 presidential election, Bush vs. Gore, in the near future, the Electoral College system will continue. Some additional states may follow Maine and Nebraska. Chances of getting a two-thirds vote in both Houses of Congress and a three-fourths vote from the 50 states concurring on a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College is remote.

Realistically, the presidential primary and the national election are built around the Electoral College system. One pundit described it as a "rock in a hard place." The Electoral College system may be flawed, but only four times in 52 presidential elections the winner has received fewer popular votes than his challenger — 1828, 1876, 1888 and 2000. These outcomes represent 7.69 percent of presidential elections.

The writer is professor-emeritus of government at St. Lawrence University.