• Home
  • Independent Voter News
  • Quizzes
  • Election Dissection
  • Sections
  • Events
  • Directory
  • About Us
  • Glossary
  • Opinion
  • Campaign Finance
  • Redistricting
  • Civic Ed
  • Voting
  • Fact Check
  • News
  • Analysis
  • Subscriptions
  • Log in
Leveraging Our Differences
  • news & opinion
    • Big Picture
      • Civic Ed
      • Ethics
      • Leadership
      • Leveraging big ideas
      • Media
    • Business & Democracy
      • Corporate Responsibility
      • Impact Investment
      • Innovation & Incubation
      • Small Businesses
      • Stakeholder Capitalism
    • Elections
      • Campaign Finance
      • Independent Voter News
      • Redistricting
      • Voting
    • Government
      • Balance of Power
      • Budgeting
      • Congress
      • Judicial
      • Local
      • State
      • White House
    • Justice
      • Accountability
      • Anti-corruption
      • Budget equity
    • Columns
      • Beyond Right and Left
      • Civic Soul
      • Congress at a Crossroads
      • Cross-Partisan Visions
      • Democracy Pie
      • Our Freedom
  • Pop Culture
      • American Heroes
      • Ask Joe
      • Celebrity News
      • Comedy
      • Dance, Theatre & Film
      • Diversity, Inclusion & Belonging
      • Faithful & Mindful Living
      • Music, Poetry & Arts
      • Sports
      • Technology
      • Your Take
      • American Heroes
      • Ask Joe
      • Celebrity News
      • Comedy
      • Dance, Theatre & Film
      • Diversity, Inclusion & Belonging
      • Faithful & Mindful Living
      • Music, Poetry & Arts
      • Sports
      • Technology
      • Your Take
  • events
  • About
      • Mission
      • Advisory Board
      • Staff
      • Contact Us
Sign Up
  1. Home>
  2. Voting>
  3. voting>

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

Mark Rush
February 06, 2020
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.

From Your Site Articles
  • Electoral College - The Fulcrum ›
  • The Electoral College will never make everyone happy ›
  • Justices see chaos if electors could make own choices - The Fulcrum ›
  • How much do you know about the Electoral College? - The Fulcrum ›
  • High court says states can require electors to be faithful - The Fulcrum ›
  • Electoral College votes should be awarded by formula - The Fulcrum ›
  • In fighting the virus, liberals wave states' rights banner - The Fulcrum ›
  • The Electoral College process is like Chutes and Ladders - The Fulcrum ›
  • An election timetable change both parties can support - The Fulcrum ›
Related Articles Around the Web
  • What Is The Electoral College, And Why Does The United States ... ›
  • Why Was the Electoral College Created? - HISTORY ›
  • What is the Electoral College? | National Archives ›
voting

Want to write
for The Fulcrum?

If you have something to say about ways to protect or repair our American democracy, we want to hear from you.

Submit
Get some Leverage Sign up for The Fulcrum Newsletter
Follow
Contributors

Texas leads the way

Lawrence Goldstone

Why the Founders would be aghast at the Supreme Court’s abortion ruling

Beau Breslin

Risks and rewards in a polarized nation: Businesses face tough choices after Roe v. Wade ruling

Richard Davies

The economic blame game, part 1: Blame your opponents

David L. Nevins

How a college freshman led the effort to honor titans of democracy reform

Jeremy Garson

Our poisonous age of absolutism

Jay Paterno
latest News

Americans overwhelmingly support some bipartisan election reforms

David Meyers
1h

Watching the Jan. 6 hearings through the lens of both accountability and healing

Julia Roig
5h

Podcast: How positive and negative freedoms shape democracy

Our Staff
7h

Coalition aims to recruit 100K veterans and military families to staff 2022 elections

David Meyers
28 June

Video: David Levine & Georgia Election Official Joseph Kirk Discuss 2022 Primary

Our Staff
28 June

Wait, what? Democrats are also funding election deniers?

Damon Effingham
28 June
Videos

Video: Memorial Day 2022

Our Staff

Video: Helping loved ones divided by politics

Our Staff

Video: What happened in Virginia?

Our Staff

Video: Infrastructure past, present, and future

Our Staff

Video: Beyond the headlines SCOTUS 2021 - 2022

Our Staff

Video: Should we even have a debt limit

Our Staff
Podcasts

Podcast: Did economists move the Democrats to the right?

Our Staff
02 May

Podcast: The future of depolarization

Our Staff
11 February

Podcast: Sore losers are bad for democracy

Our Staff
20 January

Deconstructed Podcast from IVN

Our Staff
08 November 2021
Recommended
Susan Collins, Joe Manchin, Electoral Count Act

Americans overwhelmingly support some bipartisan election reforms

Threats to democracy
Cassidy Hutchinson

Watching the Jan. 6 hearings through the lens of both accountability and healing

Accountability
Podcast: How positive and negative freedoms shape democracy

Podcast: How positive and negative freedoms shape democracy

Leveraging big ideas
Retired Army Gen. George Casey

Coalition aims to recruit 100K veterans and military families to staff 2022 elections

Leadership
Video: David Levine & Georgia Election Official Joseph Kirk Discuss 2022 Primary

Video: David Levine & Georgia Election Official Joseph Kirk Discuss 2022 Primary

Elections
Doug Mastriano

Wait, what? Democrats are also funding election deniers?