Electoral College is explained at Peters Township program
Despite the results of Nov. 8, the presidential election technically isn’t over yet.
On Dec. 19, electors in all states will convene to cast their electoral votes for the true determination of who will take the nation’s highest office, as per the U.S. Constitution.
With that date looming and with many Americans wondering why the candidate with more popular votes lost, Larry Spahr, Washington County director of elections for 36 years, provided an insightful and engaging civics lesson Thursday about the Electoral College, hosted by Peters Township Public Library.
“My first exposure in depth to the Electoral College was about 50 years ago, when I was in undergraduate school and graduate school,” he said. “One professor, and I never forgot this, characterized the Electoral College as democracy with brakes on. We might think of it in the lexicon of computer terminology today: the firewall. It divides. It separates.”
Republican Donald Trump won enough states for an Electoral College victory that will send him to the White House even though his Democratic challenger Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes.
The arcane institution has been in practice since the first presidential election in 1789, as a means to somewhat level the playing field on behalf of states with smaller populations. Under the system, the number of electoral votes for each state corresponds with its Congressional delegation, two Senators plus varying totals in the House of Representatives.
Pennsylvania’s electoral vote count currently stands at 20, down from a high of 38 in the early 20th century. States that currently have more are California, 55; Texas, 38; and Florida and New York, both with 29.
The Electoral College, Spahr said, stemmed from articles and essays published in New York City newspapers, collectively known as the Federalist papers, prior to the Constitution’s ratification.
“As Alexander Hamilton said,” Spahr explained, citing one of the acknowledged authors of the documents, “the office of president, chief executive officer of the United States under the proposed Constitution, was too important of a position to leave to the masses in final decision. Mob rule: They didn’t want that.”
He referenced the applicability to what occurred last month.
“Hillary Clinton received a majority of her popular vote between the states of California and New York,” he said. “The founding fathers said, no-no. We’re going to require by this Electoral College these presidential candidates to travel among the states, not one two or three, or a small number of large states where huge populations were going to determine ultimately who the candidates were that were elected president.”
The states’ electors, he explained, are selected following the presidential nominating conventions of each political party.
“They’re usually party functionaries, people who work extensively and have a proven basis for being a good party worker,” Spahr said. “And hopefully, they’ll have the background necessary to make a good, honest judgment.”
Usually, the electors cast their ballots for the candidate with a majority of the state’s popular vote.
“Are these people required, by law, to follow through with their pledge? No. They can change their minds, as we’re seeing currently,” Spahr said, explaining that some electors have expressed the possibility of voting for someone other than the state-carrying candidate.
Historically, cases of such “faithless electors” are relatively uncommon. But in 1960, for example, 15 of them, primarily from Southern states, voted for Virginia Sen. Harry Byrd instead of John F. Kennedy.
On several prior occasions, the Electoral College produced a winner who did not receive a plurality of popular votes, such as George W. Bush over Al Gore in 2000.
And in 1876, Spahr noted, some deals among politicos resulted in Rutherford B. Hayes being elected president even though his opponent, Samuel Tilden, at first was credited with winning both the popular and Electoral College vote. The fallout, he said, resulted in enabling the South to enact segregation laws to counter the effects of Reconstruction.
Such idiosyncrasies have many Americans wondering if the Electoral College should face elimination.
“Should we go to straight popular vote, like all the other offices?” Spahr asked the capacity crowd at the library. “Well, you folks can make up your own minds.”