Why Has the Electoral College Resisted Reform Despite Criticism
The U.S. Electoral College system has stood the test of time but has faced growing criticism over recent decades. Despite numerous attempts and occasional calls for reform, the Electoral College continues to operate much as it did over 200 years ago. What are the reasons behind this resistance to reform, and why does the system remain unaltered?
The Constitutional Barrier to Reform
One primary reason the Electoral College has never been reformed is the highly stringent requirement stipulated by the U.S. Constitution. Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, outlines that a constitutional amendment requiring a 2/3 majority in both the Senate and the House of Representatives is necessary. Furthermore, any such amendment must be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures. This means that literally 38 out of 50 states would need to vote in favor of any changes. This high bar makes the Electoral College a difficult target for reform.
Interests of the Two Major Political Parties
The two major political parties in the United States—the Democratic and Republican parties—each have significant reasons to favor the current system. The Electoral College ensures that both parties have a viable path to the presidency, as it does not solely rely on the popular vote. Eliminating the Electoral College would require both parties to agree on a new system, a feat that is improbable given their inherent vested interests.
Historical Mistakes and the 12th Amendment
Some argue that the origin of the Electoral College dates back to the early days of American democracy, with the 12th Amendment proposed in 1804. This amendment was designed to prevent conflicts between the president and vice president, but it did not fundamentally change the Electoral College system. Critics often point to historical precedents suggesting that the system was designed to give the smaller states a voice in the election process. However, many argue that this is a misinterpretation and that the 12th Amendment has little bearing on current calls for reform.
Economic and Political Incentives
Similar to the British Brexit referendum, the current system often aligns with the interests of the government in power. The incumbent party benefits from the structure of the Electoral College, which often leads to a “winner-takes-all” approach in swing states. Any attempts at reform, therefore, would need broad bipartisan support, which is currently lacking.
Constitutional Validity and Public Perception
Another line of argument against reform is the belief that citizens do not have a constitutional right to vote for president; only state legislatures do. This technically means that changes to the Electoral College would require the approval of all 50 state legislatures, amplifying the difficulty of achieving any meaningful reform. Additionally, the perception that the Electoral College produces unbiased and fair results often wins out over calls for change, particularly amongst the electorate who are more familiar with the popular vote.
Ultimately, the resistance to reform of the Electoral College stems from a combination of constitutional barriers, economic and political incentives, and historical precedent. As long as these factors remain in place, the status quo is likely to continue, albeit with increasing pressure from those who see the system as outdated and inequitable.