The Electoral College Will Not Work to Romney's Advantage

I am a strong supporter of the Electoral College.  It has worked smoothly over 94% of the time.  If you want more faithful service than that you need a golden retriever. 

Article II Section 1 of the Constitution is proof that the framers were both geniuses and masters of the all important concept of compromise.  There were some in 1787 who wanted the President of the United States elected by members of Congress.  Others thought he should be elected by direct vote of the people.  The common ground they came to was the Electoral College. 

Each state was given a number of electors equal to its number of representatives and two senators.  The inclusion of the two senators is the mathematically significant piece.  It empowers the small states disproportionate to their size.  Wyoming, the Dakotas, Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, all become a little more vociferous because we count not just their population, but their equal representation in the Senate in electing our President.  This is increased when you consider the geographic, cultural and socio-economic homogeneity of many small states when treated as a region. It is true that the visits of both major candidates to states like South Dakota (3 votes) has been negligible, but that would only be exacerbated if we elected through popular vote only.    

The current number of electors is 538, so 270 are needed for an Electoral majority.  That is why populous but swing states like Ohio (18 votes) and Florida (13 votes) get lots of attention.  That is also while very large states which are predictably red or blue like Texas (38) and California (55) get less pre-election hype. 

When you cast your Presidential ballot on November 6^th you are actually voting for a set of electors, chosen by the party leaders in your state.  You probably would not recognize the names of most of these people, and they like it that way.  These Electors are not, in fact, bound to vote as you have requested.  For example, an elector, chosen by President Obama’s team in a state that goes solidly for the President is still a free agent and can cast his vote for Romney if he wishes.  It has rarely, but, in fact, happened that an elector has voted his, “conscience” instead of his instructions.   That must have led to an interesting ride back on the train! 

There have also been times when Presidents won the electoral vote but lost the popular vote:  In 1824 John Quincy Adams lost both the popular and electoral vote to Andrew Jackson, but, because Jackson did not have the required majority the issue went to the House of Representatives where Adams’ surrogates negotiated his miserable one term Presidency.  Jackson won the next two elections.  In 1876 Rutherford B. Hayes won a heated and controversial election over Samuel J. Tilden.  And in 1888 Benjamin Harrison won an electoral victory over Grover Cleveland, who came back and won his second (nonconsecutive) term.  Most recently, in 2000 George W. Bush won over Al Gore.

This year, I fear that the Electoral College may perform in a way that will both create history and defeat my candidate.  I believe President Obama will end up losing the popular vote to Governor Romney, but still win the electoral vote.  If he does, he will make history as the first incumbent to lose the popular vote but still retain the office.  I hope not, but I don’t believe in changing rules to fit the desired outcome.

We need to get out the vote in swing states, and keep the faith.