AS PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP prepares to take office despite losing the popular vote, many Massachusetts voters may be less than thrilled about the Electoral College process But Gov. Charlie Baker describes himself as a “big fan” of the college. “I think the Electoral College preserves the importance and the status of small states,” Baker told State House News Service this week.
“If we really played this game on a popular vote only,” Baker said, “literally half the states in the United States would be disenfranchised and no one would campaign there and no one would care and I think that would be a huge problem.”
If only half of the states were ignored, that would represent a considerable improvement from where we are today. The Electoral College elevates only the handful of states that happen to have a roughly equal number of partisans living there, which is far less than half. Campaigns are only about winning or losing those states that show a chance of flipping between parties. All of the rest suffer exactly the fate Baker describes.
What’s more, the smallest states do not tend to be swing states, which for this article we describe as those decided by less than 5 points this cycle or flipping parties over the past two presidential elections. Only three of the smallest 20 states fit this description. The rest of the small states were correctly taken for granted and ignored, exactly as Baker feared. Analysis of the two campaign’s travel schedules shows not a single stop by either party’s nominee in any of the other 17 smallest states.
Without the Electoral College, Baker said, “I think you really sacrifice small states at the expense of larger ones, and I don’t think that’s good for democracy.” But this is exactly the situation the Electoral College enables. Five of the 10 most populous states were swing states, meaning the most time and attention from campaigns was spent in states with above-average population.
Another common defense (and criticism) of the Electoral College is that the extra electoral votes given to small states ensures election outcomes are not only decided by big states. But this does not affect the amount of attention small states receive from candidates. Nobody bothers campaigning in deep-red Wyoming or reliably blue Vermont, even though their electoral votes are vastly out of proportion with their tiny populations. Their electoral votes are taken as given, and with good reason.
The irony of the governor’s comments is that Massachusetts is a poster child for neglect under the current electoral system. Barring a complete upheaval or Republican landslide, Democrats are going to win the Bay State’s electoral votes by a huge margin. It doesn’t matter if their final margin is 23, 25, or 50 points in the state; the results in the Electoral College are the same. So no campaign will take the trouble of sending candidates or surrogates to ask for votes in the Pioneer Valley or hear about the priorities of North Shore residents.
If you’re a Massachusetts voter, your vote (or Baker’s, if he had cast one) simply doesn’t matter.
In this sense, the Electoral College joins the primary system in diminishing to near zero the attention most states receive from presidential candidates and skewing incentives away from candidates talking to voters all across the country.
Actually, Massachusetts serves some role in presidential politics beyond exporting mostly losing candidates. And but for five minutes in the spotlight before the primary, we actually get the worst of all worlds. Candidates come to Massachusetts to hold big-ticket fundraisers, then take that money and spend it targeting voters in other states. And because much of Massachusetts shares a media market with southern New Hampshire, both a swing state and the first primary state, we become collateral damage in the TV ad wars, forcing voters to channel surf around a toxic tidal wave of campaign and SuperPAC spots washing toward our neighbors to the north.
If the vote margin in Massachusetts mattered, maybe that would be different. Despite our Democratic leanings, there are plenty of persuadable voters. Compared to past elections, voters in the Greater Boston region swung strongly for Clinton, while Trump increased margins over Romney in Western Massachusetts. Imagine Trump landing in Boston and doing events around the city. Imagine Clinton or her surrogates stumping across Hampden and Hampshire Counties, trying to hold down the rural margins.
Want cod fishing taken seriously by NOAA? Want federal help fixing the MBTA? Replace the Electoral College with a popular vote so that campaigns need to worry about the margin, not just the winner of the state.
Forcing candidates to fight for every vote could translate to a more inclusive type of governing. Republicans could less afford to ignore urban centers, and Democrats would have to pay more than lip service to rural and exurban concerns.
Defending the Electoral College makes more sense from a purely partisan standpoint – it has been almost the only hope of Republican presidential candidates in recent decades. But when it comes to the interests of Massachusetts, and most everywhere else, voters on both sides of our aisle who want their voices to be taken seriously would benefit from dumping it.
Steve Koczela is the president of the MassINC Polling Group.
CommonWealth Voices is sponsored by The Boston Foundation.
The Boston Foundation is deeply committed to civic leadership, and essential to our work is the exchange of informed opinions. We are proud to partner on a platform that engages such a broad range of demographic and ideological viewpoints.
If the Electoral College is such a great way to elect the President then why doesn’t Governor Baker propose legislation to apply an electoral college system to statewide elections: Governor, Attorney General, Treasurer, Secretary of State and the U.S. Senators? Perhaps the Governor could find a way to extend the electoral college practice to congressional districts, counties and local elections.
The Electoral College was designed by the Founders to reflect the fact that the US is ultimately a republic of associated states, not a unitary democracy.
Also note that a very solid case can be made that state elections from local ward seats to those for the State House – if not also US House of Representative seats – already have much in common with the electoral model.
At the same time, a full on intra state electoral model makes little sense as the Electoral College was set up as a NATIONAL model to empower each state among all states. In other words, you are talking apples and artichokes.
Still, if you don’t care for the current as well as various constitutions’ governing things, feel free to seek to amend them. Bon chance, however.
This article quotes Governor Charlie Baker as a “big fan” of the electoral college and “I think the Electoral College preserves the importance and the status of small states.” I wrote if the Governor thinks the electoral college is such a great way to elect the President then why doesn’t he propose legislation to apply such a system to elections within a state? As you point out, the electoral college levels the playing field among states so why not level the playing field among cities and towns within a state? Why does each individual vote count for all elections from congressmen and U. S. Senators to governors but not to the election of the president?
With all due respect, you are basically reiterating but a variation on your original premise as well as now IGNORING my pointing out how all manner of intrastate elections have much in common with the electoral model.
You also do not appear to appreciate how the Founders left it up to the states to decide how they elect their elected officials.
You further don’t appear to be knowledgeable of how the Founders’ properly viewed the election of the President as a unique case and so set the elections rules for this office accordingly after considerable as well as on occasion heated deliberations.
Again, if you don’t care for how things are currently set up, feel free to seek the necessary federal and state constitutional amendments.
Supporting the electoral college for the presidential election but then having all Lower elections decided strictly on the number of individual votes cast is split thinking. The fact no state adopted an electoral college system to elect their statewide office holders should have put into motion a change on how the president is elected. The Founding Fathers didn’t limit presidential terms but an amendment to the Constitution changed that so the U.S. Constitution is not chiseled in granite…that’s why the Founding Fathers ensured amendments could be made with Article V. I haven’t come across one good argument for continuing the electoral college.
Clearly, you have not duly read the contemporaneous commentary by and about the Founders’ deliberations on electing a President. If you had, you would know that they gave it very careful consideration.
As noted previously, they viewed the election of the President as a unique instance when it came to federal elected office and so set election rules for it accordingly.
One can question what they decided; however, you have so far FAILED to duly critique the Founders’ rationales and resultant decisions that were codified in the Constitution.
Put another way, your view that there is no good reason for the current Electoral College system so far ultimately appears to be without any reasoned basis other than what appears to be personal opinion.
Conversely, if you were to read the contemporaneous accounts of the Founders, you would know that they had valid concerns about a full-on democracy and so set up the United States as a republic. Think what you may, but this is a distinction that has resulted in a considerable difference.
Next, are you unaware of the fact that the Electoral College Presidential election constitutional protocol has been amended as well as that the original constitutional order of succession also changed via two separate constitutional amendments?
You might also care to note that care of another amendment, the election of US Senators was changed from the original constitutional protocol of their election by their
respective State Legislature and thus – you might care to note – a manner of
electoral protocol to their direct election.
As such, as well as again note that you are free to endeavor to see the various constitutions amended to see what all you would like to see be the ways things are done.
At the same, be careful what you wish for without first carefully considering what you would like to see be different.
Thanks for pointing out the 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution changed how U.S. Senators were elected. Instead of by state legislatures that amendment gave the direct vote to the public. The electoral college is only brought up every four years then quickly forgotten. The electoral college winner is happy with the outcome so sees no need for changes to the system. The popular vote winner but electoral college loser just fades away. The other day the Pew Research Center had an interesting article on the electoral college that mentioned the election of 1912 with four candidates: Woodrow Wilson, William Howard Taft, Theodore Roosevelt and Eugene V. Debs. Wilson won 82% of the electoral votes with less than 42% of the popular vote. I think the electoral college is worth an in-depth review along with other possible ways to vote for president. For example, Maine voters just approved “Choice Voting” where rank-choice vote allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference. Perhaps that’s the way to go. Or, eliminate the two-party stranglehold on the entire process starting with the presidential debates. I’m sure there are plenty of options we could consider. Perhaps just because we’ve done something for 200 plus years doesn’t mean we should continue doing it.
Again with all due respect, you continue to fail to address the well-reasoned reasons why the Founders set up the election of the President via the Electoral College protocol.
Specifically, as well as again, it was because the Founders set up the United States as a republic of conjoined states as well as that they had grave doubts about opting for full on democracy on at least the national level. That and as yet another constitutional balance of power protection to our three separate parts system of national governance.
Change the election of the President and the length of this leg on the three legged stool is so changed in ways you that have failed to address, much less apparently not duly pondered the potential implications of same.
Next, and while you probably feel differently, noting curious electoral votes in past elections is ultimately an all but irrelevant, if not also a bogus, diversion.
Also bogus is your assertion over 200 years of relying on the Electoral College is no reason to justify continuing to use it. After all, it has worked well enough over the years as well as has been at most been subject to little more than ultimately but a little Monday morning quarterbacking following but some of the past Presidential elections.
Conversely, one cannot help but suspect appear that your ultimate beef with the Electoral College is with who won the election this year than it is with any of your thin arguments for changing things to a popular vote model.
Guess, what: neither am I pleased with the outcome – but the rules are the rules.
Even so, as well as yet again, if you want to change the various constitutions to see otherwise, knock yourself out.
Finally, you might care to note that there is ample literature published that argues that changing to a popular vote approach would likely greatly REDUCE the super majorities in certain states for one party (e.g., CA, NY & arguably TX).
As such, you might want to considering boning up on the Law of Unintended Consequences.
That and the sage message of King Canute to his court.