So here’s the thing: the Electoral College. The idea is to ensure that less populous states remain in play. Why should “states” matter instead of “people”? Because we’re supposed to be a “federation” of sovereign “states” electing the President. That’s the story, at least, if you’re of “federalist” bent—never mind the first three words of the Constitution: “We the People” (not “We the States”).
Right now, it seems pretty clear that Barack Obama is more popular than John McCain among the people. According to the polling data at RealClearPolitics, on average, national polls show 51.6% of people favoring Obama, but only 44.3% favoring McCain. Assuming the “popular vote” works out like that, shouldn’t Barack Obama be the president? Not necessarily. Not under our system, where we insert the Electoral College to siphon some power from the people and give it to the states. Of course, there is no good reason to do that unless you believe that the entities (be they geographical, economic, administrative, imaginary, or some combination) known as “states” have an important interest—independent of the people—in who occupies the Oval Office.
Personally, I don’t put much stock in that idea. States may have an important interest in electing members of Congress, who, under one understanding, are supposed to advocate for interests unique to their states. (Never mind, I guess, that when they do advocate for their state interests, it tends to be stuff like “pork” and “earmarks.”) But then, I’ve always thought that Andrew Jackson’s “Proclamation on Nullification,” in 1832, made much more sense:
The people of the United States formed the Constitution, acting through the State legislatures, in making the compact, to meet and discuss its provisions, and acting in separate conventions when they ratified those provisions; but the terms used in its construction show it to be a government in which the people of all the States collectively are represented. We are ONE PEOPLE in the choice of the President and Vice President. Here the States have no other agency than to direct the mode in which the vote shall be given. The candidates having the majority of all the votes are chosen. The electors of a majority of States may have given their votes for one candidate, and yet another may be chosen. The people, then, and not the States, are represented in the executive branch.
In the House of Representatives there is this difference, that the people of one State do not, as in the case of President and Vice President, all vote for all the members, each State electing only its own representatives. But this creates no material distinction. When chosen, they are all representatives of the United States, not representatives of the particular State from which they come. They are paid by the United States, not by the State; nor are they accountable to it for any act done in performance of their legislative functions; and however they may in practice, as it is their duty to do, consult and prefer the interests of their particular constituents when they come in conflict with any other partial or local interest, yet it is their first and highest duty, as representatives of the United States, to promote the general good.
The Constitution of the United States, then, forms a government, not a league, and whether it be formed by compact between the States, or in any other manner, its character is the same. It is a government in which all the people are represented, which operates directly on the people individually, not upon the States; they retained all the power they did not grant.
In other words, the United States government, what we often call the “federal” government, is a government of the people, created by the people—not by the states acting on behalf of the people. And even in the House of Representatives, and I would argue the Senate, too, the members are not truly representatives of their respective states, obligated to steer the small end of the funnel of federal funds toward their constituents as often as possible, but representatives of the United States to their constituents, liaisons between Congress and the people. They are not puppets of the masses. Their job, as Jackson’s “Proclamation” said, is “to promote the general good.”
And the same is true, I think, of the President, though the responsibilities elucidated in the Constitution are outward-looking in scope. The President is the representative of our people to the rest of the world. When I read Article II of the Constitution, I see the job description for a combination commander-in-chief and ambassador-in-chief. (Obviously, lots of people disagree with me.)
So, in my view, the people and not the states should elect the President.
But we have the Electoral College, which is just a system that candidates and their operatives can “game.” And they do. Why do we have “swing states”? Why do the candidates spend so much time in places like Florida and Ohio and Pennsylvania talking about issues, but only come to California when they need money? They are gaming the system, allocating their resources where they know a race can be won or lost. So instead of empowering the less populous states, the Electoral College confers an arbitrary benefit on states where, due to some demographic fluke, people seem to take a lot longer to make up their minds.
And since the abolition of the Electoral College does not seem likely anytime soon, maybe We the People should start gaming the system, too. Maybe we should start lying to pollsters more, to give them the impression that states like California and New York will stay “in play” right up to election day. If we can convince the pollsters and the news media and the candidates that we are all ”swing states,” then maybe we can all become “battleground states” and all our votes will count again when we vote for the President.
Next time around, I guess.
Me, I’m just keeping my fingers crossed, I guess. In 2000, the people voted for an exceedingly smart fellow, but the “system”—together with the Supreme Court—gave us “Great Moments in Presidential Speeches.” It’d be nice to have a commander-in-chief and ambassador-in-chief who can represent our people to the rest of the world as the great people we really are. But there’s the system, just itching to be gamed. We’ll see tomorrow night. I hope.