Political Science Doctor Come Quick, Our Democracy is Sick: The Electoral College and the Side Effects it has on American Democracy Sponsoring Faculty Member: Dr. John Tures Knox Robinson 1 The “Green” areas on the map are where both the Obama and Romney campaigns spent their time and money. The “White” areas represent the areas of decreasing political participation and increasing ideological polarization. 1 (The Washington Post 2012) 140 Knox Robinson Part I: Introduction This paper is an analysis of the health of American Democracy and will specifically look at the role that the Electoral College plays. I will look at the voting numbers from the last three general elections and evaluate whether the Electoral College is bad for democracy because it concentrates time and money in a hand- ful of “purple” states which enjoy high citizen participation while the other 80% of red and blue states see a lot less voter participation. Red states are non-competitive Republican states; Blue states are non- competitive Democrat states. Purple states are battleground or swing states, the green areas on the map above. Without the Electoral College I estimate that 15 million more votes would have been cast in 2012. The literature of this paper surveys the true wealth of the United States - social capital, and illuminates the facts that American civic and political participa- tion have been in decline. My research is a mixture of quantitative and qualitative approaches; personal interactions with people from all over the country and litera- ture sources comprise my qualitative approach, with data on campaign spending (both time and money), and voter participation statistics. My results will show that the Electoral College is an inefficient institution and why it is a hindrance to American democracy today. Robert F. Kennedy and Robert Griffin III 2 “Any who seek higher office this year must go before all Americans: not just those who agree with them, but those who disagree; recognizing that it is not just our supporters...but all Americans, who we must lead in the difficult years ahead” - Robert F. Kennedy: March 21, 1968: Tuscaloosa, Alabama3 The last campaign of Robert Francis Kennedy electrified America for 82 days until he was tragically assassinated. Kennedy ignored the traditional method of buttering up delegates and campaigning only in primary states. Kennedy sought out Americans that were hurting. Kennedy visited inner city ghettoes; he went to Appalachia, the Mississippi Delta, Indian Reservations and migrant labor camps etc. Bobby Kennedy could have unified America by his approach to cam- paigning. We have not had such a public servant knock on the door of the presi- dency since. He could have healed partisan gridlock because he made policy deci- sions using common sense logic, not ironclad political ideology.4 Also atypical to 2 (The Monterey County Herald 2010) 3 (Clarke 2008,54) 4 (Clarke 2008,178) 141 Presidential campaigning was the way Kennedy interacted with people. There was no act, no persona, none of the cliché’ kissing babies stuff. Kennedy hit the streets and had real conversations with people. He did not try to be a certain way in front of crowds, it was apparent whenever he was nervous or angry or emotional.5 However it is unlikely he would have won the General Election, despite the fact that his victory in California put him in the driver’s seat for the Democratic nomination. The Electoral College was designed to and still does lock out candi- dates with broad appeal and/or non-mainstream ideologies. Kennedy’s campaign style would not have been conducive to success in a national election in which he would not have been able to go out and touch the people he was running for President to help. Kennedy was a political rock star. The style and manner in which he took on devastating social issues like poverty, warfare, and racial hatred appealed to Americans of all walks of life, locations and ideology. Wherever he went there were masses that descended upon him just to touch or grab him. In Thurston Clarke’s book The Last Campaign: Robert F. Kennedy and 82 Days That Inspired America, he quotes another well known Kennedy biographer Theodore White; White claimed that sharing a car with Bobby could be a scary experience as RFK’s campaign would reach “a terrifying frenzy” in minority neighborhoods.6 Like his brother, the late President John F. Kennedy, Bobby was youthful. But unlike the always calm, cool and collected Jack, Bobby had no reservations wearing his emotions on his sleeve and calling people out.7 He was constantly engaging crowds, instead of telling them what they want to hear and challenging Americans to take responsibility and do something about our social ills. He took complete blame for his role in Vietnam as Attorney General, showing uncharacteristic humility for a candidate.8 Most spend all of their time talking about how they have superior judgment in everything and how much worse their opponent is. Sometimes a stagnant system needs a ringer to shake things up. This brings me to my next point. Robert Griffin III is the most popular man in Washington, DC - and for good reason. He has done exactly what Obama promised to do: bring hope and change to our nation’s capital. Ten, fifteen or twenty years ago he would not have made such an impact in the NFL because there was an institution in place that mandated that only cer- tain types of Quarterbacks succeed. Offenses in the National Football League did not want dual threat quarterbacks like RGIII because he did not fit their schematic and ideological mold. NFL offensive ideology mandated that quarterbacks be 5 (Clarke 2008,64) 6 (Clarke 2008, 59) 7 (Clarke 2008, 183-192) 8 (Clarke 2008, 45) 142 Knox Robinson strictly passers and game managers, not runners. But rule changes by the NFL’s governing body that protect the quar- terback9 have allowed more exciting players like Robert Griffin III, Michael Vick, Russell Wilson and Colin Kaepernick to come into the league and inject a new style and a new excitement that have led to greater popularity for the NFL. Even critics of the quarterback protection rules agree; it has led to the NFL becoming one of the most popular aspects of our culture and it is one of the reasons televised prime time professional football games are America’s most watched television programs.10 RGIII is an outside the box leader who not only is one of the NFL’s best Quarterbacks but a figure that appeals to Americans from all walks of life. It really hit me how rampant RGIII fever was in Washington, DC when I walked into an Ethiopian restaurant/bar one night and saw a series of three framed pictures on the wall; the pictures were of three very special people. The first was of His Impe- rial Majesty, Emperor Haile Selassie; the second was a picture of President John F. Kennedy; and the third was a picture of RGIII. But why is this important or relevant to the Electoral College and Ameri- can Democracy? Had the NFL not evolved into the type of game that has use for someone like RGIII, the excitement and social cohesion that he provided DC with last fall would not have happened. He is the kind of leader that nearly everyone can find something to appreciate about him. Democrats and Republicans in DC are constantly demonizing the other party and for this most part struggle to agree on hardly anything. But if there is one thing that the city’s Democrats and Republi- cans can agree, it’s that everyone loves RGIII. Commentary on the state of NFL football is hardly the appropriate thing to add to a lengthy Political Science research paper; but this analogy actually serves a purpose in the argument for changes to our national election system. The Electoral College is excluding these unifying figures from making serious White House runs - which was what the institution was created for. It is a mechanism that sifts out populist, mass appeal candidates. 21st Century Southern Politics and American Individualism The Electoral College creates political isolation; the emergence of “swing state” mania has sped up this process, as large swaths of the map are “forgotten” regions of the country. Former Alabama Congressman Glen Browder refers to it as “new American regionalism”11 In these isolated areas Republicans become more 9 (NFL 2012) 10 (Nagler 2012) 11 (Browder 2009,89) 143 conservative and Democrats become more liberal. Political isolation has occurred as a result of Presidential campaigns focusing on a small proportion of the elector- ate, which makes our broader political landscape all the less competitive. This is a problem that strikes us at the core of our American heart and spirit. This soul of America can be embodied by the idea of American individualism. “American individualism” is a term that can be very broadly defined. Presi- dent Herbert Hoover writes about it extensively in his pamphlet, which is con- veniently titled American Individualism. From reading Hoover’s work it becomes easier to define the idea of American individualism. Simply put the uniqueness and political success of the world’s flagship democracy is defined by the concept of the “equality of opportunity”12. In the words of President Hoover; “while we build our society upon the attainment of the individual, we shall safeguard to every individual an equality of opportunity to take that position in the community to which his intelligence, character, ability and ambition entitle him.”13 The essence of the great democratic experiment is that everyone is guar- anteed political equality. To safeguard our right to equality, the citizens of America have a say in their government. A government for the people, by the people - but the Electoral College stands in the way of our “equality of opportunity”. It is out- dated and has become a hindrance to our democracy. Our democracy is only as strong as our levels of citizen participation, when citizens become disenchanted with politics and become less involved it is a sign that it is time to check the heart of our democracy. Institutions must progress with society. The institution in place for choos- ing our President is incredibly outdated. A mode of electing the Commander in Chief in the 18th Century is not conducive to democratic success. When the Elec- toral College emerged as a good idea our political leaders also thought it unac- ceptable to free slaves or give women basic rights. We were a much more homog- enized culture occupying thirteen colonies clustered along the eastern seaboard. The Electoral College does allow for the beauty of “the equality of opportunity”, which is the lifeblood of the American democratic system. Allow me again to quote President Hoover; “the rightfulness of our individualism can rest either on philosophical, political, economic, or spiritual grounds. It can rest on the ground of being the only safe avenue to further human progress.”14 While soaking up the experience of Alabama Political Science Association 2013 in Tuscaloosa, a great analogy of our predicament came to me about how changing the system to match human progress is key to sustaining success over 12 (Hoover 2012,8-9) 13 (Hoover 2012,9) 14 (Hoover 2012,13) 144 Knox Robinson time - so why not cite the most successful college football program over time? Coach Paul “Bear” Bryant won national championships at the University of Alabama in the 1960’s and 1970 are running the “Wishbone” offense. However if Coach Nick Saban’s 2013 edition of the Crimson Tide were to try and run this style of offense it is hard to imagine them making a title run as championship caliber teams today all feature multiple formations and a balance of the run and the pass. Part II: Literature Review Origins of the Electoral College To start at the beginning we need to understand what the Electoral Col- lege is exactly. It is explicitly defined in Article II, Section 1,Clause 2-4 of the United States Constitution. This is what it says: “The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the Presi- dent of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.”15 Common political dilemmas can often be traced back to the ideological differences of Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson. All students of politics know that Jefferson was the brainchild of American Republicanism and Hamilton that of American Federalism. James Madison was more aligned with the Jeffersonian camp, but he worked extensively with Hamilton on the Constitution. The two thinkers were the 15 The Constitution of the United States 145 architects of the document and both men represented the two most powerful states of the time; Madison, Virginia, which also was the centrifuge of the south- ern interest and Hamilton, New York, the northern counterpart. Two men with different ideologies representing both geographical interests of the new country formed the foundation for the new representative American democracy. In defense of and in attempts to stir up support for the ratification of the United States Constitution Madison and Hamilton along with John Jay penned 85 essays that would comprise The Federalist Papers. Madison and Hamilton explicitly defended the institution of the Electoral College in two of these essays. Federalist No. 39 was written by James Madison. The following is an excerpt. “The immediate election of the President is to be made by the States in their political characters. The votes allotted to them are in a compound ratio, which considers them partly as distinct and coequal societies, partly as unequal members of the same society. The eventual election, again, is to be made by that branch of the legislature which consists of the national representatives; but in this particular act they are to be thrown into the form of individual delegations, from so many distinct and coequal bodies politic. From this aspect of the government it appears to be of a mixed character, presenting at least as many federal as national features.” - Federalist No. 3916 What Madison is explaining here is that there is a specific design for the Electoral College system. It is a formula that makes states both equal and unequal in certain cases. He is making the case for a representative rather than a direct democracy. As an architect of our government, Madison sought to implement mechanisms that keep the balance in the federal system between the states and the national government. Today people take the national and federal government to be one in the same. Madison here is addressing the differences between the ideologies of the time that pined for a smaller government or a larger government. If you pay atten- tion to political rhetoric today you know that the same debate is still raging. In attempting to combine both elements in a government, America was trying something relatively new. This forms the basis of a Republican government. There are three principles that Madison lays out here which define Republicanism and defend the Electoral College. His three principles are that the government must receive the consent of the United States people; that the people will elect representatives among them to administer the government; and that representatives will be allotted a set time 16 (Federalist No. 39) 146 Knox Robinson frame of service and that they must maintain good behavior and retain the favor of the people.17 At the time of conception the Electoral College served this valiant pur- pose. Can we say this is the case now? Alexander Hamilton wrote eleven essays on the powers of, and the limitations of the powers of, the executive branch. In the second of those eleven essays, Federalist No. 68, he lays out the mode of electing the President and the justification for it. He explains what our modern Electoral College is and explains that in the case of a tie the election would be decided in the House of Representa- tives. This, as we all know, would happen sooner rather than later in the election of 1800. Hamilton was vehemently opposed to the idea of a direct election, which in his opinion would surely place an unqualified person in charge of the executive branch of our government. He thought that the people still had their say so in the process; they elect the electors. It adds a democratically elected middleman to the process. Hamilton’s ideal electors are “Men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.”18 Hamilton is making the assertion that Presidential elections should be decided not by the voice of the citizens, but an institutional system. Whether or not he was questioning the abilities and intelligence of the people is not the point; but in taking the choice out of the direct hands of the citi- zenry and outsourcing the choice to an electoral institution, the American people are slighted and underhanded in the process of democracy. This was clearly not the intention of Hamilton and Madison, but it has been a result nonetheless. While Hamilton’s words come off more bluntly than Madison’s do, the idea and the gist is the same. The Electoral College was clearly designed to safe- guard and ensure the implementation of republican, representative democratic principles in the political process. Hamilton and the other framers knew what a vital role the President would play in the United States for years to come. They believed the Electoral Col- lege would provide the country with a leader that was both capable of fulfilling the duties of the office and representing the interests of the whole electorate. In clear opposition to the Constitution’s provision for the Electoral Col- lege, an anonymous pen that referred to himself or herself as Republicus wrote Anti Federalist No. 72. In that essay the author expresses his or her disdain for a process that removed the direct voice of the people and delegated that power 17 (Federalist No. 39) 18 (Federalist No. 68) 147 into the hands of a few.19 It is clear from reading this essay that there was a strong voice of opposition at the time that feared that the United States Executive Branch would morph into a hereditary monarchial administration. This sent a distress sig- nal that explains the fears of the possibility of a few select congressmen propping up a leader that would be loyal to very select interest. While the author of Anti Federalist No. 72 and Alexander Hamilton are representing opposite ends of the spectrum, their end goal is the same. To ensure that a capable leader that represents the interests of the American people as a whole is elected President, this is the essence of a healthy democracy. Even today, one could argue until he or she is blue in the face about how the Electoral College either strengthens or weakens democracy. There are very good arguments today; such as one made by distinguished Political Scientist Gary Glenn regarding something that Alexander Hamilton might say. “Immediately, anyone with a significant numerical following has an incentive to run. The gover- nors of large states are automatic candidates, as are movie stars, rock musicians, and ethnic leaders. The more candidates who run, the more the popular vote will be divided, and the lower the number and percentage of votes needed to win will become.”20 This is a problematic critique of direct democracy, but I feel that this state- ment belittles the American people. In a world with public education and tech- nological breakthrough if we give citizens the equal opportunity to choose our President, the overall political participation will increase. It is important to realize though that the Electoral College was seemingly logical at time of conception it was created to deny political equality to the elec- torate to outsource it into more capable hands, in which the founder’s opinions safeguarded the democratic process. The Electoral College is no longer effective in today’s democracy; it never accounted for a vast 50 state nation spread across the continent, it never account- ed for African-Americans or women to vote. We no longer live in a world where, in the words of Senator Thomas Hart Benton we need “men superior, discernment, virtue and information”21 who act “according to their own will” to choose our lead- ers. Is the Electoral College a cancer in today’s American democracy? This is former Illinois Congressman and Presidential candidate John B. Anderson’s answer why: “Our elections, as they are now held, have divided rather than united the country. Battleground states are the focus of both the candidates and the media. In the 2004 campaign, to cite only one example, President Bush bothered to poll in only eighteen states. More importantly, most registration drives were focused 19 (Anti Federalist No. 72) 20 (Glenn 2003) 21 (Edwards III 2004,19) 148 Knox Robinson on battleground states. Is it healthy for the democratic process to see the number of competitive states decreasing? Indeed, if federalism is a principal argument for some last-ditch advocates on the Electoral College in a country where an overwhelming majority of Americans favor direct election but feel increasingly ignored, it is the defenders of the status quo who should feel challenged?”22 An Electoral College cannot continue to serve democracy and exist in a society where campaigns are capable of spending $791.12 million in negative ads in only ten battleground states.23 Social Capital and the Health of American Democracy “Americans of all ages, all stations of life, and all types of disposition are forever forming associations. There are not only commercial and industrial associa- tions in which all take part, but others of a thousand different types-religious, moral, serious, futile, very general and very limited, immensely large and very minute....Nothing in my view, deserves more attention than the intellectual and moral associations.” - Alexis de Tocqueville24 The theme of our Senior Seminar class has been nation building; more specifically, we have looked at the concept of social capital. Essentially social capi- tal is the wealth of society in social terms. America has always seen itself as that shining house on the hill; emanating the ideal virtues of liberty and equality. The causality of liberty and equality of course is political and civic participation. So I decided to look at a key foundation of how our nation is built: how we elect the President of the United States. However, it is not just an examination of how we choose our chief executive, but what that means for, and how it has been affecting, America’s social capital. If you consider the health of our democracy on the equality of partici- pation, how sick is our democracy? There are two pivotal works on the state of American democracy in terms of our social capital that analyze our stagnant political quagmire. Bowling Alone written by Robert D. Putnam and The Spirit of Democracy written by Larry Diamond. Putnam wrote Bowling Alone in 2000; the reason that this work is so important to us now is because it explains in societal and political terms how we have gotten to the place we are; his work in analyzing trends in political partici- pation and civic engagement in the decades leading up to the turn on the 21st Century. 22 (Anderson 2005) 23 (The Washington Post 2012) 24 de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America 149