Glenn Garvin

In my opinion

Electoral College a political asterisk that should be erased

 

ggarvin@miamiherald.com

The viral hit of the Internet over the weekend was a video of a 4-year-old Colorado girl who burst into tears when her Cruella de Vil mom tuned the car radio to NPR. “I’m tired of Bronco Bama and Mitt Romney,” she sobbed. Oh, honey, us too. But here’s some horrifying news: We might not be rid of them yet.

Romney’s big lead in red states, coupled with the tenuous advantage held by Bronco, errr, President Obama in several swing states, might produce the polar opposite of the mess we had in 2000, when Al Gore got the most popular votes but lost the presidency in the Electoral College.

And if you’re a Democrat gleefully thinking that turnabout is fair play, consider another entirely plausible possibility: Obama wins the popular vote in a squeaker, but the Electoral College finishes in a tie. That turns the election over to the House of Representatives, where the solid Republican majority guarantees a Romney victory.

And then we can finally unite in horror at the kicker to that one: The choice of a vice president would be in the hands of the Senate, where the Democratic majority would probably reelect Joe Biden. We’d stop whining about gridlock and worry about an American version of the Borgias.

None of these scenarios can be called likely. But the fact that we have to think about them at all is a serious indictment of the sloth of our elected representatives. For more than 200 years, we’ve been at the mercy of the U.S. Constitution’s most infamous asterisk, the Electoral College. Both parties have been victimized by its anti-democratic (with a small d) caprice, yet neither will get off its hands to do anything about it.

The Electoral College is partly the result of compromises at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, a time when most people envisioned the new nation as a loose confederation of state governments, in which the small would need protection from the big. But the delegates were also quite explicit about their fears that most Americans were idiots in need of adult supervision. Virginia’s George Mason scoffed at the notion that “the people can have the requisite capacity to judge of the respective pretensions of the candidates.” Declared Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts: “The people are uninformed, and would be misled by a few designing men.”

Result: the Electoral College, in which each state gets a number of electors equal to that of its combined congressional delegation. Its defenders often argue that while it may have theoretical drawbacks, it’s worked well in practice. That is manifestly false. It only took four elections for the Electoral College to run off the track — a tie between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr. It took the House of Representatives 36 ballots and all manner of smelly deals before Jefferson got the job.

That resulted in passage of the Twelfth Amendment in hopes of streamlining the process. But problems have persisted on a distressingly regular basis. Three presidential candidates — Democrat Samuel Tilden against Republican Rutherford Hayes in 1876, Democrat Grover Cleveland against Republican Benjamin Harrison in 1888, and Democrat Gore against Republican Bush — have won the popular vote but lost the election in the Electoral College. (And it came within a hair of happening in 1960, when Republican Richard Nixon lost to Democrat John F. Kennedy by a razor-thin margin of 110,00 votes at the ballot box but was clobbered in the Electoral College.)

In 1824, the Electoral College chose a vice president, John C. Calhoun, but couldn’t muster a majority of votes for any of the four presidential candidates. The House finally elected John Quincy Adams, even though Andrew Jackson had the most electoral votes. In 1836, electors had the reverse problem: They agreed on Martin Van Buren for president, but refused to vote for his vice presidential candidate Richard C. Johnson, who had a unfortunate habit of romancing his slaves and selling the ones who rejected him. (His support for federal money for an expedition to the center of the earth, which he believed hollow, probably didn’t help.) The election was turned over to the Senate, which chose Johnson anyway.

Name a problem, and the Electoral College has it. You wanna talk about political inequities? Wyoming gets one Electoral College vote for every 134,000 people, Florida one for every 479,000. You wanna talk about rogue electors? Nine times since 1948, an elector has ignored the popular vote in his state and voted for somebody else — most recently in 2004, when some madman from Minnesota voted for John Edwards for president instead of John Kerry.

Do we have to accidentally elect the National Enquirer Candidate of the Century to get this thing changed?

Read more Glenn Garvin stories from the Miami Herald

  • IN MY OPINION

    Glenn Garvin: Welcome to ‘unwelcome’ speech on campus

    I know it was hard to hear anything last week over the cacophony of the White House roof falling over Benghazi, the IRS and spying on reporters. But still, I was surprised there wasn’t more fuss about the Obama administration’s war on Shakespeare.

  •  

300 dpi Troy Oxford color illustration of man tied to chair (torture victim) trapped inside a clenched red fist. The Dallas Morning News 2009<p>

torture dilemma illustration victim fist prison human rights; krtcrime crime; krtnational national; krtwar war; krtworld world; mctillustration; krt; krtjustice justice; rights; detainee; prisoner; CLJ; WAR; CRI; 02000000; 16000000; 02007000; 16009003; 2009; krt2009; mct mct2009 2009 da contributor coddington oxford

    IN MY OPINION

    Ugly truth: Sometimes, torture works

    John Kenneth Galbraith once observed that “the enemy of the conventional wisdom is not ideas but the march of events.” And events have finally caught up with the oft-repeated claim that torture doesn’t work and that it especially didn’t work in tracking down Osama bin Laden.

  •  

Abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell is on trial in Philadelphia.

    IN MY OPINION

    Murder? Not if you just kill a baby

    Nearly a quarter-century has passed since The Los Angeles Times published a piece by the late David Shaw, then its media critic, arguing that the anti-abortion viewpoint didn’t get fair treatment in the news media. Among the anecdotes he used to illustrate his case was that of a Boston Globe reporter who turned in a story on late-term abortions only to have an editor reject a sentence that described the operation “destroying” the fetus by “crushing forming skulls and bones.” Said the editor: “As far as I’m concerned, until that thing is born, it is really no different from a kidney; it is part of the woman’s body.” So to use the word “destroy,” the editor continued “is really to distort the issue.”

Miami Herald

Join the
Discussion

The Miami Herald is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere on the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

The Miami Herald uses Facebook's commenting system. You need to log in with a Facebook account in order to comment. If you have questions about commenting with your Facebook account, click here.

Have a news tip? You can send it anonymously. Click here to send us your tip - or - consider joining the Public Insight Network and become a source for The Miami Herald and el Nuevo Herald.

Hide Comments

This affects comments on all stories.

Cancel OK

  • Videos

  • Quick Job Search

Enter Keyword(s) Enter City Select a State Select a Category