Apr 6, 2019 3 min read

Given the talk of replacing the Electoral College (EC) with a popular vote in determining our nation’s president, might I put in a word for the EC, while acknowledging that times have changed, and it doesn’t work exactly as intended.

One reason the Founding Fathers created the EC was their fear that, given the then-primitive communications, the people wouldn’t have enough information about the candidates to make wise decisions. So, the Electors – this is one difference from today – were supposed to interview and appraise the candidates to determine their qualifications. But because today the people have more than enough information regarding the candidates, Electors almost uniformly vote for whichever candidate wins a state’s popular vote, even though they aren’t required to.

However, the fact that the states, through their assigned EC votes, determine the winner is critical because were presidential elections based on the popular vote alone, candidates would focus on the most populous states – California, New York, Illinois for Democrats; Texas, Florida, Georgia for Republicans – thus paying little attention to states with lesser populations, and paying little attention to the concerns of the voters in those states.

But New York, California and Illinois total just 104 EC votes, and Texas, Florida and Georgia just 83, which, in either case is far shy of the 270 EC votes needed to win. That means, to reach 270, both Democrats and Republicans must campaign in Midwestern states such as Kansas, Nebraska and the Dakotas, as well as the “Rust Belt” states, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and so on.

That also means candidates must consider the concerns of the people in those geographic areas because, for example, while the Midwestern states individually don’t amount to a significant vote total, collectively they amount to some 60 EC votes. What’s more, their citizens have similar livelihoods, mostly agricultural-based, and similar lifestyles, mostly small-town and communitarian. That means they have similar concerns and priorities, inducing most of them to vote similarly. Collectively, that makes them a significant voting bloc, as are the Rust Belt states, which can mean the difference between winning and losing.

The point being that whoever is elected president must keep in mind not just the priorities of the jet-setting financial wizards of New York, the hi-tech folks in California, the energy-industry conglomerates in Texas, the tourist industry in Florida, etc. – as a president elected by a popular vote would likely do – but also the economic, social and cultural (i.e. political) concerns of the folks in Nebraska, Kansas, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, etc.

And if there is one elected official whose priorities should be as nationally all-encompassing as possible, it is the president.

Next week, reason number two to keep the Electoral College.

Bruce G. Kauffmann’s email address is bruce@historylessons.net.