MERICA HAS BEEN immersed in a cram course in history, politics, and law for the past few weeks. The experience has been riveting and unnerving, but it has also revealed the strength of our democracy.
At the same time, this election highlighted the pivotal and seemingly anachronistic role played by the Electoral College. Many people are shocked that this little understood process may have trumped the popular vote, as it did three times in the 19th century. Reform is in the air.
Before we start tinkering, however, we must understand the reasons underlying the present system.
The Electoral College was created before universal suffrage, when voting was reserved for elites. The system also reflected a political compromise needed to secure the Constitution's ratification, which gave less populous states disproportionate representation, both in the Senate (where each state, whatever its population, has two senators) and the presidential selection process.
Smaller states fared better in choosing the chief executive because each state's electoral votes are based on its total number of House and Senate representatives. That extra boost may not seem significant until you remember that even if he holds Florida, Governor Bush will have only one vote more than needed in the Electoral College.
The enduring genius of the Constitution was to unify the nation while also preserving state and regional influence.
If the president is chosen by direct popular vote, this balance will change dramatically. Candidates will concentrate almost exclusively on major metropolitan markets. What is at stake is not merely whether states like Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire get their share of fleeting campaign appearances, but whether our unique regional or rural interests, like home heating oil, timber, fishing, and small farm policies, will be recognized.
There are also practical problems. In a close election, who wins may come down to a handful of votes in each precinct. If the post-election disputes in Florida seem out-of-control and disruptive, consider what a nation-wide recount, in which each vote is potentially decisive, would look like.
Direct popular election of the president, then, would diminish the voice of voters in less populous states and potentially bring greater uncertainty to the process. There is, however, a way to give greater weight to the popular vote while preserving important constitutional principles.
The Constitution leaves it to each state to decide how to choose its electors, and what, if any, limits to place on its choices. In 1969, Maine amended the law governing its presidential electors. Two of Maine's (at-large) electors must vote for the candidate winning the statewide popular vote, while the other electors (now numbering two) must vote for the candidate winning the congressional districts they represent.
Maine's scheme was an improvement on two scores: it deters rogue electors from ignoring the will of the people (as many states still allow), and it replaced the prevailing winner-take-all allocation of all of a state's electoral votes with an allocation that is more likely to reflect the popular vote.
The change also has the advantage of not requiring a constitutional amendment. When initiated by Congress, amendments require a two-thirds majority of the Senate and House (plus adoption by three-quarters of the state legislatures). Since any reform that dilutes the power of smaller states will find tough going in the Senate, state statutory reform may be a more realistic approach.
How would such a system have affected this year's election? It is impossible to say, since candidates knew that, except in Maine and Nebraska, they were operating in a winner-take-all environment. Thus, they appeared and advertised heavily in Detroit but rarely in rural Michigan.
By contrast, Maine voters saw presidential and vice presidential candidates appear and speak to their concerns in the 2nd District cities of Bangor and Lewiston, as well as Portland in the 1st District.
In short, the Maine model would preserve regional interests, encourage candidates to focus on swing congressional districts in all states, and democratize the process of choosing our national leaders. It is a proposal worth considering nationwide.
Tom Allen is a Democratic US representative from Maine.
