Controversy in presidential race should not call Electoral College into question

In his Nov. 16 'Prince' editorial, S. Karthick Ramakrishnan GS suggests "modernizing" the United States Constitution, not by pursuing the "minor" change of abolishing the Electoral College, but a "middle-range solution" of changing the internal structure of the United States. One wonders what Ramakrishnan would consider a "major" change, but I hesitate to invite such contemplation.

The substance of the argument he puts forward, it seems, is that the current electoral system is a national embarrassment and we should comport ourselves to the expectations of the rest of the world. A Times of London editorialist chides us for maintaining the "swollen appendix" of the Electoral College, and Ramakrishnan condemns our "Luddite" and "outdated constitutional machinery," and proposes its "modernization" so that we can "restore our national dignity."

Apparently it is not dignified enough that we have the world's oldest continuously functioning constitutional democratic republic; instead we should follow the lead of India, which has changed its internal state borders with some frequency. This is a curious recommendation at best: It is a mark of the strength of American democracy that other nations now look to our current electoral controversy with some surprise, since our electoral system, unlike much of the world's, functions with remarkable consistency and legitimacy. The fact that the current controversy is an exception to the rule, and not the rule, should give us some pause before we decide to "fix" what is not self-evidently broken.

Most people who oppose the Electoral College accuse it of being "undemocractic." In fact, this is simply not the case: Electors are chosen democratically, but in each state. Each person's vote counts equally, but in each state. The president is chosen by a national election, but by means of electors who have been chosen democratically in each state.

Proposals for the abolition of the Electoral College seek to give each person's vote an equal weight through a national election of the President. Yet, the view that democracy is defined purely by means of a national electoral majority is a dubious proposition, and we should think quite hard about whether some other inestimable benefits of democracy would be sacrificed in the effort to ensure one other aspect of democracy — namely, the rule of a national majority.

The main benefit of the Electoral College is that it forces presidential candidates to visit, address, understand and communicate with a variety of local and regional leaders; to understand particular interests and concerns; and to be educated in the nation's diversity in a way that would not be possible if — through the institution of a national election — candidates would reasonably spend most of their time in the nation's metropolitan centers. Part of the enduring genius of the American Constitution is that it gives as much priority to local majorities (through such organs as the House of Representatives, the Senate and the Electoral College) as it does to national majorities (through such features as the amendment process).

A democracy's vitality is dependent not only on guaranteeing that a president is elected by a national majority, but also on ensuring that a president has been adequately exposed to a variety of viewpoints. At the same time, it gives citizens even in remote and sparsely populated regions the assurance that their views count and are heard; it increases the opportunites for and possibilities of local political participation, the absence of which is profoundly detrimental to democratic politics.

The ironic result of abolishing the Electoral College would be to make citizens feel less connected to the governing powers in Washington, D.C. — already a severe problem plaguing American democracy. Given that less than half of eligible citizens now vote in elections, the aim should be to improve democracy — not by creating a national election, but by restoring the sense of civic dignity and meaning for citizens by increasing the possibilities of meaningful political participation. Abolishing the Electoral College would have the opposite effect, and would likely create greater alienation from the political process. It takes a perverse mind to define that outcome as more "democratic." Patrick J. Deneen is an associate professor in the politics department. He can be reached at pdeneen@princeton.edu.