Panel debates merits of Electoral College system

A panel on the Electoral College yesterday afternoon considered the merits and faults of the system that has recently contributed to much of the political turmoil rocking the nation.

Five professors gathered at the Wilson School to outline a variety of positions on the much-maligned institution — ranging from the view that it should be abolished completely to the contention that any reforms are unnecessary and even undesirable.

Among the panelists, the most common objection to the Electoral College was that it creates an unfair policy of disenfranchisement. For instance, argued Christopher Eisgruber — a faculty fellow in the program in law and public affairs — Gore supporters who vote in solidly pro-Bush states like Texas are rendered irrelevant under the current system.

"A lot of votes just don't count," he said. "I think that's disturbing."

However, politics professor Keith Whittington countered that the Electoral College creates an important compromise between geography and population.

To win an election under the current system, Whittington argued, a candidate must garner geographically wide support. "This forces candidates to consider more interests," he said.

Without such a system, he argued, candidates might not be responsive enough to the interests of voters in states with lower populations.

Some panelists, however, noted that because the outcomes of elections in states such as overwhelmingly Republican Texas or predominantly Democratic Massachusetts are all but decided beforehand, there is little incentive for candidates to respond to the populations that are in the political minority in those states.

For instance, it would not have been worth Vice President Al Gore's time to campaign on issues important to Texans. Thus, some panelists contended, rather than encouraging campaigns to respond to a wide voter base, the Electoral College might actually discourage candidates from responding to some voters.

Visiting professor Melissa Williams, however, suggested that the current system only needs to be modified.

She said if all 50 states adopted somewhat proportional systems — such as those currently in place in Nebraska and Maine — many of the problems caused by the electoral college could be solved while retaining some of the benefits.

Currently, the number of electoral votes granted to each state is equal to the number of Congressional districts the state contains, plus two.

Get the best of ‘the Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

In Maine and Nebraska, however, candidates receive one electoral vote for each Congressional district in which they win a majority. The remaining two votes are given to the candidate winning the statewide majority.

Under this system, Williams argued, candidates would have an incentive to campaign even in states where they would probably lose the overall vote.

Furthermore, the two votes determined by the statewide majority would discourage candidates from ignoring states with low populations, Williams said.

However, even under this system, voters in political minorities would be rendered irrelevant, and it still would be possible for a candidate to win the Electoral College while losing the popular vote.

Indeed, it is this dilemma that seems to most irk opponents of the Electoral College.

"The main problem with the Electoral College is that it violates the principle that every vote should count the same," visiting research scholar Joan Tronto said.