Publisher, The FlashReport
Jon Fleischman
What They Are Saying
"My mornings begin with two indispensible starters: a cup of coffee and the Flash Report."
- Ken Khachigian, Senior Advisor and Chief Speechwriter for former President Ronald Reagan 
More Testimonials
Send FlashReport to a Friend
Featured Column Library
GOVERNOR: VETO AB 2948 - DON'T END-RUN THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE
An exclusive column penned for the FlashReport by Tara Ross, a nationally-recognized expert on the Electoral College system.
September 11, 2006
[Publisher's Note: The FlashReport is please to bring you this column from Tara Ross of Texas, who is an expert in the Electoral College system.]
If you are new to the FlashReport, please check out the main site and the acclaimed FlashReport Weblog on California politics.
Okay, so let’s be honest. California would reap all sorts of benefits if the Electoral College were eliminated. Presidential candidates would flock to the state, and the needs of Californians would immediately receive more federal attention. For once, many Californians might feel that they are more than a fundraising stop on the way to Ohio. Suddenly, their votes would seem to matter more.What Californian in his right mind would turn down such an opportunity? Perhaps Electoral College supporters, such as myself, should just get over it. Maybe we should resign ourselves to the fact that California lawmakers will leap at any opportunity to change the presidential election system—much as they did last week.
On August 30, legislators approved a proposal that could change the way in which California’s electoral votes are allocated. If the Governor signs the measure, it will authorize the state’s participation in a newly proposed interstate compact. Under this compact, participating states would agree to allocate their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. The compact will go into effect only if states with a majority of electoral votes agree to the plan.
In essence, the compact would create a direct popular election for the presidency. The Electoral College would exist in theory, but not in practice.
Naturally, such a system would feel like a breath of fresh air to many Californians. Once presidential campaigns become races for individual popular votes, rather than state electoral votes, the Union’s most populous state would undoubtedly become a major focus of presidential election campaigns. Indeed, Californians who once felt ignored could soon become tired of the overwhelming number of campaign commercials thrown their way.
But in time, other Californians—those who don’t live in Los Angeles or San Francisco or San Diego—would notice that presidential candidates have not yet begun to visit them in appreciably larger numbers. To the contrary, those in rural areas may notice that their needs are receiving even less attention than before. Before the compact, rural needs received some attention, if for no other reason than because some swing states have many rural areas. Absent an active Electoral College, however, why would candidates rush to visit the nation’s less populated rural areas? It’s simple. They wouldn’t. Such campaign stops won’t generate enough bang for their buck.
The next thing Californians would notice is the quick disintegration of the two-party system. At first, the wide range of choices on Election Day would be appealing. With so many third-party candidates, every individual may cast his vote exactly as he wishes. Who wouldn’t enjoy that? However, multi-party races have rather nasty side effects, including a deeply fractured populace and the possibility that an extremist candidate could win with a small plurality. Moreover, the increased number of candidates lowers individual popular vote totals. The decreasing margins of victory between candidates lead to more recounts and election contests.
The Electoral College, at least, creates incentives for moderation and compromise. The most successful candidates are the ones who do the best job of reaching out to a variety of Americans. Moreover, the system discourages undecided presidential elections. Recounts and litigation, such as those that occurred in 2000, are rare in our nation. Instead, the Electoral College is a stabilizing force in American politics.
If the Governor signs the anti-Electoral College bill that has been presented to him, Californians will certainly see short term benefits from the new presidential election system that could result. But these benefits will not last. Ultimately, the country can’t thrive without the moderating influences of the Electoral College. And Californians can’t prosper when their country is hurting so badly. The Governor will serve his state, as well as his nation, if he vetoes the bill.
Californians may feel doomed to a world in which they never receive attention from presidential candidates, but they should keep their chins up. True, the past two elections have featured close elections in which swing states are given extra importance. Historically speaking, however, such situations have not remained for more than a few election cycles. To the contrary, the incentives created by the Electoral College discourage such stark lines between red and blue America. Instead, the process encourages us to work together, understand each other, and moderate our views where appropriate.
Such a system is healthy for America and, thus, for Californians.
____________________________________________________________________________
You can read more about Ms. Ross right here.
Tara Ross is the author of Enlightened Democracy: The Case for the Electoral College.
