View on the news

Is it a ballot box full of promise or an exercise in futility?

By Christopher Curran
Posted 5/26/16

Throughout our nation's history, Americans have hoped that the casting of their vote will eventually lead to the possibility of a better life for themselves and their families. Each of us strives to choose a candidate for the presidency who most reflects

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

E-mail
Password
Log in
View on the news

Is it a ballot box full of promise or an exercise in futility?

Posted

Throughout our nation’s history, Americans have hoped that the casting of their vote will eventually lead to the possibility of a better life for themselves and their families. Each of us strives to choose a candidate for the presidency who most reflects our dreams and aspirations and personal political ideologies. Or cynically, we choose the lesser of evils in order to merely exercise our voting rights in homage to those who have fought for our freedoms.

However, in the general elections of 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000, when American citizens hoped their votes would be intrinsically valuable in fulfillment of the promise of their citizenship, their votes were devalued. The eventual result of who ascended to the presidency was in reality a betrayal of the will of the people.

Specifically, in our republic, the votes that actually elect a president are cast in state capitols a month following the general election by members of the Electoral College. This archaic system, drawn when we were an uneducated farming nation, is a quadrennial reminder of the inescapable fact that we are not a true democracy. The “one man, one vote” mantra may be a valid heralding call for the elections in state houses, in the Congress, and in your town council, but the value of a citizen’s ballot is diluted when it comes to choosing a president. Four presidents in American history have ascended to office in a manner which was morally fraudulent yet constitutionally legal.

The most pertinent question is whether or not pledged member electors will follow through with and vote in keeping with the majority of votes cast in a particular state in the November election. With this election season’s presumptive nominees Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, because of their high negatives and potential harm to their own parties, anything could happen.

In an election cycle when the two presumptive major party candidates hold extraordinarily high negative polling ratings, one can not hesitate to wonder whether or not members of the Electoral College will vote as they are pledged to vote or choose another path. This peril seems especially possible in regard to the presumptive Republican nominee. Many, if not most, of the establishment GOP do not care for Trump. So far the expressions of support have been lukewarm and scattered. To date, the current leader of the Republican Party, Speaker of the House and former 2012 vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin), has not endorsed the volatile and inconsistent candidate.

Thus, this situation begs the question: Should the Donald seem to prevail in November when the ballots are cast, will the members of the Electoral College vote him into office when the real pertinent voting convenes in various state houses in December?

Certainly, Democrat electors will be more likely to cast pledged votes for Hillary Clinton than they would be for Trump. Although Hillary holds a reputation for being deceptive and hard-hearted, she has served as a United States senator from New York, secretary of state, and first lady. One can of course contend that her tenure as secretary was a failure and her voting record as senator was inconsistent. Character and proficiency aside, no one can say that the width and breath of her experience is not in keeping with a reasonable portfolio for an aspiring president to have.

Furthermore, even her detractors agree that compared with the real estate magnet Trump, she is unquestionably more qualified to occupy the Oval Office. Thus, the members of the Electoral College would be theoretically more likely to cast their votes with Clinton regardless of the totals of the popular vote and ensure her ascension.

Simply, in regard to the Electoral College, Trump is a wild card. Electors from both parties could conceivably jump ship in the convening state houses due to Trump’s total unpredictability as a possible president. His expressed intentional recklessness strikes fear in the hearts of people from both parties.

Foundationally, the problem is the archaic Electoral College system itself. The 12th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees that each elector may cast one vote for president and one vote for vice president. Traditionally, the elector should vote in a manner reflective of the majority of votes cast in a given state. But, an elector is constitutionally able to vote any way he or she chooses when the roll is called a month after the general election. Thus, electors sufficiently motivated by their apprehension about a particular candidate can vote otherwise. The only exceptions to this liberty are electors in the states of Maine and Nebraska. Those states have a strict “majority takes all” rule and therefore must vote as pledged.

There are a total of 538 electors who actually elect a president. Hence, the equation requires a vote of 270 to constitute an absolute majority. The electors consist of the 435 representatives in the Congress, the 100 senators, and three electors from the District of Columbia.

In the 2012 presidential election, the results of the Electoral College were indeed reflective of the will of the people. Incumbent President Barack Obama from Illinois received 51.1 percent of the popular vote and 332 electors’ preference, while former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney received 47.2 percent of the popular vote and 206 electoral votes. Historically, other candidates for the presidency did not experience such equity.

Way back in the infancy of our country, our sixth president, John Quincy Adams, advanced to the presidency without actually accumulating a majority in the Electoral College or the general election tabulations. In a four-way race, Andrew Jackson received a plurality of 99 electoral votes and a plurality of 41.4 percent of the general election votes cast. Yet because none of the candidates – Adams of Massachusettes, Jackson of Tennessee, William Crawford of Georgia, or Henry Clay of Kentucky – received an absolute majority, the election was placed in the House of Representatives. Adams proved to be the most successful dealmaker and eventually ascended to the presidency by striking what has been called the “corrupt bargain” with candidate Henry Clay, thus gaining his supporters. The result was hardly an example of the people’s will.

Similarly, in 1876, President Rutherford B. Hayes of Ohio (known in Washington, D.C., as “Ruther-fraud”), garnered only 47.9 percent of the popular vote, while his opponent Samuel Tilden of New York won 50.9 percent. Through back slapping deals, “Ruther-fraud” engineered a victory by one elector’s vote.

Also, in 1888, incumbent Grover Cleveland of New York prevailed in the popular vote over Benjamin Harrison of Indiana by one percentage point. However, Harrison ascended to the presidency by swaying electors in the Electoral College. As a result, Harrison won 233 to 168. Cleveland’s alienation of certain elected officials during his first administration provided an opportunity for Harrison dissuade formerly pledged electors.

Most recently, Vice President Albert Gore won the popular vote by a half-million votes in 2000. Nevertheless, George W. Bush took the Oval Office with 271 electoral votes. A Supreme Court decision preventing a further recounting of the precarious Florida voting gave Bush the presidency.

As you have seen, in the past the will of the people has been circumvented by the absence of direct voting for the presidency. The Electoral College allows for the possibility of chicanery and the system should be changed. We are no longer an uneducated agrarian nation in which the populous is too obtuse to express their will. The vote that counts should reside with the people.

In this year of an inordinate candidate on the GOP side and a repellant candidate on the Democrat side, any type of manipulation of this archaic and unfair system is even more probable. Electors could quite possibly ignore their non-binding pledges and vote another way. Who occupies the Oval Office should be democratically determined. The Electoral College has to go!

Comments

2 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here

  • Ken B

    The Electoral College is the best way to determine who the President of the United States will be. Election by popular vote would allow the three west coast states, California, Oregon and Washington, and the liberal northeast states, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Vermont, to determine who becomes the President of the United States, The population per square mile in these states controlled by Democrats is high and Democrats usually get over 60% of the popular vote. The United States is not a Democracy, it a Republic of 50 states whose state rights have to be protected.

    Saturday, May 28, 2016 Report this

  • HerbTokerman

    On a similar note, parties that choose to have a rigged process (i.e. the democrats) should reimburse the state for the cost of the primaries.

    What is the point of the state paying for an election where the will of the people is completely disregarded?

    Sanders heartily beat Clinton, yet Clinton left RI with more delegates.

    Saturday, May 28, 2016 Report this