1) The people (not states) should elect the president:
Hamilton wrote in the Federalist 68 that,"the Executive should be independent for his continuance in office on all but the people themselves."
i.e., the president should be accountable to the people -- not states, Senators, Representatives, judges, governors, etc. The EC shouldn't favor citizens in less populous states because every American's vote for president should indiscriminately count equally. The framers didn’t care whether small states had a say in electing the President. They were concerned about small states’ representation in Congress, which is why regardless of population, each state receives two Senators. As a side note, the U.S.’s first government system (embodied in the Articles of Confederation) only lasted from 1781 - 1789 and failed because it gave too much power to the states and kept the federal government too weak. Under the revised Constitution, the power to govern comes from the people, and not from the states. Two things happen in each states' winner-take-all approach. First, anyone who voted for the losing candidate has their vote switched to the winning candidate. Even if you didn't bother to vote at all, your non-vote still counts toward the states’ winning candidate merely for existing in that states' population. America is quite purple. Secondly, any votes cast in excess of the 50% majority are wasted votes. Optimally you'd aim to win states by very small margins to maximize the number of votes "flipped". Doesn't this sound familiar? Ah yes, it's a form of state-level gerrymandering that receives much attention from campaign strategists, which brings us to the next point.
2) Swing states shouldn't receive the spotlight:
In the current system, only a handful of swing states determine the election's outcome, so only their local issues receive attention from campaigns/candidates while the majority of states/people are ignored.3) Slavery maintained the EC when it was under revision in 1803:
The 12th amendment revised the presidential/VP election process, and the idea of removing the EC was proposed, but had no chance of succeeding because it protected the slave states. Slaves were partially counted toward the populations of states (but slaves couldn't vote), so this gave the non-colored citizens living in southern states significantly more voting power, and they were unwilling to remove the EC.4) The original core intent of the EC is not being applied:
In short, the EC was designed to prevent the population from doing something stupid. Its purpose was to allow the population to choose their president while retaining the ability of the electors to override that decision if necessary. More specifically, the framers wanted to ensure the population didn't elect a president who was:- Unqualified
- The product of mere popularity, intrigue, or an extraordinary or violent movement
- Chosen under improper influence of a foreign power
This video explains the EC’s power during the 2016 election. Ironically, the EC didn't seem to exercise any independent judgment whatsoever, partially because its never needed to before. In fact, 29 states have enacted laws prohibiting Electors from voting for anybody other than their state's winning candidate. However, these laws have been largely unchallenged and are most likely unconstitutional because they oppose the very purpose of the EC.
To quote my friend Michael Malin, the existence of these laws just proves further that few people "[...] seriously believe that the Electoral College still does the job the framers envisioned: thoroughly examining the candidates and saving the people from themselves when the situation calls for it. The Electoral College has become a rubber stamp for the winning party in each state. Instead of doing a meaningful job of vetting the candidates one last time before inauguration, the Electoral College distorts the popular vote and serves as a mechanism for campaign strategizing.
So, understanding what the Electoral College is supposed to do and what it actually does, what should we do with it? Do we think that our information technology, radically superior to that of the 18th Century, eliminates the need for a smaller learned body of people to investigate our presidential candidates? Do we believe that over two hundred years of Electors following their partisan leanings has shown that the Electoral College will never take its role seriously?
Or do we still think it’s a good idea to limit the will of the people in order to ensure the president is qualified, serious, and not a foreign agent? And if so, do we need to change the Electoral College to make sure it actually does its job, instead of rubber-stamping the party nominee? Either way, the Electoral College isn’t working how it’s supposed to, and probably won’t until we fix it or eliminate it.
If the Electoral College was to do its job and properly evaluate the candidates, there is no way it would find Trump 'eminently qualified.' Trump is above all else the product of popularity and intrigue. He is a reality show star that was able to continuously conjure up free press through controversy after controversy, at the expense of almost any comprehension or discussion of policy. And foreign influence? I don’t know how much Russia actually cared about the election, but it seems they were at least somewhat interested in either helping Trump or hurting Clinton. Surely Trump is the sort of choice that the Electoral College was created for, to protect us from ourselves. What’s funny is that the Electoral College isn’t protecting us from ourselves. The popular vote chose the candidate that was more qualified, less intriguing, and was the target of foreign opposition. It is the Electoral College that is thrusting the dangerous candidate on us."
What now?
In conclusion, I’d like to suggest some courses of action. As I see it, there are four general outcomes of the 2016 election:Option 1 (most likely): The EC blindly elects Trump without any consideration to their roles as "evaluators". The EC system is waiving its power, ignoring the original intent, and proving its vestigiality/obsolescence. Therefore, it should be abolished immediately (like removing a ruptured appendix) and replaced with a national popular vote.
Option 2: The EC exercises their right and finds that Trump is very under-qualified, thus choosing a different candidate. Then the EC system remains intact, because for the first time in history it is finally fulfilling its purpose.
Option 3: Many of the Electors become faithless electors and do try to override Trump’s presidency, but fail to reach number required. Both the presidential nominee and the EC remain intact.
Option 4: Compromise. Switch to a popular vote to determine the presidential winner within each state, but also keep Electors as evaluators and allow them to have the final say. This can be achieved without a constitutional amendment using a National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which already has 60% of the state participation that it needs. Here electoral votes are awarded proportionally instead of winner-take-all.
