Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

If the electors can be faithless, why have an Electoral College?

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court

Drew Angerer/Getty Images

Rush is a professor of politics and law and the director of the center for international education at Washington and Lee University.

This spring, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in Colorado Department of State v. Baca and then decide if members of the Electoral College are bound to abide by the laws of the states from which they hail.

In the case, Michael and Polly Baca as well as Robert Nemanich — electors from Colorado in 2016 — assert that this year's (and all future) electors have the right to vote for anyone, regardless of how the people of Colorado vote. The Supreme Court chose to hear the case because of a conflict between two lower courts. The Washington Supreme Court ruled a state could bind its Electoral College delegates. In Colorado, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that this was not the case.

The Baca case is vexing for numerous reasons. Foremost, it highlights once again the arcane and undemocratic manner in which the United States elects its presidents. According to the Constitution, one needs a majority of the electoral college votes — not a majority of the popular vote — to win the election. For most of the country's history, the winner received a majority of both. But in 2000 and again in 2016, George W. Bush and Donald Trump did not win the popular vote.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter


For those who decry such results, the Electoral College is nothing less than an abomination — a mechanism that can override the will of the people. For others, it is nothing more than another rule built into the constitutional structure (such as an independent judiciary and the bicameral Congress) that makes it difficult for majorities to form (or govern) too easily.

Regardless of how one views the Electoral College, the Baca case looms as an ominous threat that could render the Electoral College even more controversial. As arcane as the system may be, it remains part of a constitutional structure that recognizes the integral role states play in the political system. No doubt, the system has its shortcomings. Throughout American history, "states' rights" claims have promoted a host of evils ranging from the perpetuation of slavery and Jim Crow laws to more mundane but inefficient practices, from different driving ages for different categories of people to laws that make it difficult for professionals to transfer their licenses from one state to the next.

The sordid history of states' rights notwithstanding, within the context of the Electoral College the states remain a fundamental part of the constitutional system. It would be extraordinary — and even more undemocratic — to empower a state's electors to ignore the will of the people who sent them to the college in the first place.

Granted, if electors are bound by the will of the people, they could rightfully ask what the point of sending them to their state capitals to cast their votes for what would be a preordained outcome. There is no questioning this logic: If we know the outcome of the presidential election in November, what's the point of symbolically reaffirming it two months later?

On the other hand, if the electors can defy the will of the people who chose them with their presidential votes, what's the point of having electors in the first place? Again, if the election result is known in November, why go through a ritual two months later if the Electoral College delegates can overturn the November results?

As controversial and arcane as the Electoral College is, it remains part of the Constitution. If the country wishes to get rid of it, it must do so by constitutional amendment. This is an arduous, slow and time-consuming process. But, it is a process the Constitution outlines clearly. If the Electoral College is such an undemocratic disaster, an amendment to get rid of it should require relatively little trouble.

Until the amendment idea becomes a reality, however, there is no question electors should be bound by the will of the people and the legislature of the state that sends them. To free them from that bond would render the Electoral College even more undemocratic than it already is and radically increase the likelihood of electoral chaos every four years with the nation forced to wait until January, close to inauguration day, to see whether the November popular vote result was to be overturned.

Let us hope — let us pray — that the Supreme Court keeps this in mind as it hears the Baca arguments.

Read More

People voting
Paul J. Richards/Getty Images

Make safe states matter

Richie is co-founder and senior advisor of FairVote.

It’s time for “safe state” voters to be more than nervous spectators and symbolic participants in presidential elections.

The latest poll averages confirm that the 2024 presidential election will again hinge on seven swing states. Just as in 2020, expect more than 95 percent of major party candidate campaign spending and events to focus on these states. Volunteers will travel there, rather than engage with their neighbors in states that will easily go to Donald Trump or Kamala Harris. The decisions of a few thousand swing state voters will dwarf the importance of those of tens of millions of safe-state Americans.

But our swing-state myopia creates an opportunity. Deprived of the responsibility to influence which candidate will win, safe state voters can embrace the freedom to vote exactly the way they want, including for third-party and independent candidates.

Keep ReadingShow less
Map of the United States

The National EduDemocracy Landscape Map provides a comprehensive overview of where states are approaching democracy reforms within education.

The democracy movement ignores education races at its peril

Dr. Mascareñaz is a leader in the Cornerstone Project, a co-founder of The Open System Institute and chair of the Colorado Community College System State Board.

One of my clearest, earliest memories of talking about politics with my grandfather, who helped the IRS build its earliest computer systems in the 1960s, was asking him how he was voting. He said, “Everyone wants to make it about up here,” he said as gestured high above his head before pointing to the ground. “But the truth is that it’s all down here.” This was Thomas Mascareñaz’s version of “all politics is local” and, to me, essential guidance for a life of community building.

As a leader in The Cornerstone Project and a co-founder of The Open System Institute I've spent lots of time thinking and working at the intersections of education and civic engagement. I've seen firsthand how the democratic process unfolds at all levels — national, statewide, municipal and, crucially, in our schools. It is from this vantage point that I can say, without a shadow of a doubt, that the democracy reform movement will not succeed unless it acts decisively in the field of education.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hands making a heart and painted to look like an American flag
Chinnapong/Getty Images

A framework for democracy philanthropy

Stid is the executive director of Lyceum Labs, a fiscally sponsored project of the Defending Democracy Together Institute. The following is reposted with permission from his blog, The Art of Association.

It is challenging for philanthropic funders to get started and stay focused when it comes to strengthening democracy. The vagaries of our political system — really a complex system of systems cast on a continental scale — make it hard to know where to even begin. There are dozens of solutions that could be worthy of support. Alas, none are backed by dispositive evidence indicating that they are the single-best way forward. Then, every second and fourth year, elections reset the stage of democracy and reshuffle the cast of characters, often in unsettling ways.

Democracy's proximity to politics further complicates the philanthropic picture. The tax code bars foundations from backing or opposing candidates, parties and ballot measures. Many foundations take a belt-and-suspenders approach to this proscription on electioneering by avoiding anything that smacks of politics (as democracy-related causes frequently do). Other foundations, in contrast, push right up to the edge, seeking to exploit all the legal ways they can underwrite voter registration, education and participation, ostensibly on a nonpartisan basis, to further their political goals.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Keep ReadingShow less
Red and blue figures pulling a map of the U.S. apart

Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft, who oversees elections, is running for governor this year.

filo

We can break the partisan cycle by unrigging the system

Sturner, the author of “Fairness Matters,” is the managing partner of Entourage Effect Capital.

This is the sixth entry in the “Fairness Matters” series, examining structural problems with the current political systems, critical policies issues that are going unaddressed and the state of the 2024 election.

We face complex issues, from immigration to the national debt, from Social Security to education, from gun violence to climate change and the culture war, from foreign policy to restoring a vibrant middle class by ensuring economic outcomes are more balanced and equitable.

Yet, neither party seems to be doing much about any of the political problems and policy challenges plaguing our nation. Instead of working on real solutions, our politicians spend their time and our national resources distracting and dividing us by using every tool at their disposal to retain power. Why is that? As Andrew Yang points out in a recent TED Talk (quoting a senator), “A problem is now worth more to us unaddressed than addressed.” It’s galling until you remember that the Democratic and Republican parties are private, gain-seeking organizations that exist to seek and retain power. As such, we should be wary of political parties because our interests and theirs are not aligned.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Keep ReadingShow less