By
Lora J. Mackel
In years when a third party is rising in the electoral climate, there is much discussion of whether our electoral college system hampers a three or more party system. Most American voters, while they do have a vague concept of its existence, do not know what the college does. But without an understanding of the electoral system, they do not understand the obstacles faced by third-party candidates or why campaigning is so unevenly distributed throughout our nations.
The electoral college system was set up to safeguard the country against the passions of the average voter. Like the other checks and balances embedded in the Constitution, the electoral college was set up as a reviewer of the popular vote. Article II, Section I of the Constitution lays out the college's perameters: every state is given a slate electors that equal its number of senators plus its number of representatives. Electors are selected in a presidential campaign year, and each state's method is dependent on its laws. In Arizona, the electors are selected by the political parties. Arizona is the only state beside Maryland to use this method of selection, all other states select their electors either by state party political convention, or by their party's central committee. The political party who receives the plurality of the popular vote gets a block of electoral votes, known as the winner take all system. Arizona is on the low end of the spectrum of electoral votes, with 8 electoral votes. The state with the most electoral votes is California, with 54.
Implications of this system are numerous. First, it creates a system where the highest office in the land is not arrived at by direct election. This theoretically sets up a system where the electors could vote for candidates who did not receive the majority of the popular vote. Secondly, the electoral college system is heavily biased toward already established political parties, as the electors are given in blocks, not proportionally. Third and most importantly, political candidates concentrate their campaigns in states with the highest amount of electoral votes, virtually ignoring four-fifths of the country. Voters in places like Wyoming and Alaska are made to feel that their votes are less important, and do not get a voice in the electoral discourse of an election year.
For all its faults, does the electoral college really prevent a third-or-more party system in American politics? The college has been in existence for over two centuries, and numerous new parties have emerged in the process. In the end, however, third parties were either absorbed or did absorb parties, creating two very strong parties. Of course, there have always been small, third parties around, like the Libertarian party, but these parties are virtually ignored and get very little popular support. Still, for more than two hundred years, the ideal American political model has been a strong two party system and this is very likely the doing of the "winner take all" system of the electoral college.
For a candidate to win an election he must get 270 out of 538 electoral votes. Electoral votes are given on the basis of plurality of state popular vote. When a candidate has the highest percentage of votes in a state, he is given all the state's electoral votes. The problem with giving blocks of electoral votes is that it ignores the national tallies of votes for candidates. For example, Gore could win the majority of electoral votes in the country while not achieving the majority of overall votes nation wide. The Electoral College keeps the third parties down by ensuring that they can't get any representation without having majority support in any region. That means that Ross Perot's 20 percent nationwide didn't count, while George Wallace, liked in the south but nowhere else, had a voice.
So far, the electoral college has outlived Whigs, Populists, a civil war, two world wars, and the sixties. Its longevity might be a testament to the lack of voter education that the founding fathers feared, or a legacy of voter approval of the strong two party system. To change the electoral system, a constitutional amendment would be needed. One attempt to reform the system was undertaken in 1977, but it failed to be ratified with a two-thirds majority in the Senate, and was abandoned. As we enter into a new century, we need to look at our old institutions, and see if they fit the new political climate and era we are entering into. If people care deeply enough to amend the electoral college, then it will most likely succeed. But as it stands, the electoral college denies American voters the right to directly elect their president and hampers strong third party growth.
It has effected the way politicians run for office, and where they will campaign. The "winner takes all" model might be outdated, but only the American people can change it.
