The Electoral College was a system originally designed by the Founding Fathers as they were attempting to figure out how to elect a president. At the time of the Constitutional Convention, no other country in the world directly elected its chief executive, so the delegates were in uncharted territory. One group of delegates felt strongly that Congress should not have anything to do with picking the president. Another group was set against letting the people elect the president by a straight popular vote. They came to a compromise based on the idea of electoral intermediaries. The states would each appoint independent “electors” who would cast the actual ballots for the presidency.
Every four years, when it comes time to enter a new election season and a voting is on the horizon, concerns surrounding the electoral college surge to the forefront of the media. The Electoral College is made up of 538 electors who cast the votes that formerly elect the president. Each state has one elector per senator and state representative. Because of this, citizens call into question the power of their own individual vote. Now, in retrospect this debate seems very clear. Those in favor of abolishing or altering the electoral college, and those who wish to uphold the system. However, as you look further into the argument, it offers crucial insight surrounding its original intent, racial discrimination, partisan biases, geographical significance, and how it effects federalism and democracy.
Defending The Electoral College
The essay written by Allen Guelzo and James H. Hulme, “In Defense of the Electoral College” frames an argument as to why they believe the Electoral College is relevant. In this piece they delve into the presumed misconceptions about the system, and complete an extensive refutation. They go about this in a very strategic way. The idea they seem to accentuate is the democratic ideals of the American people. They realize that at the very heart of this country is the principle of freedom, and they tailor their argument to that coveted American precedent. This essay emerged in 2018 after the 2016 election when Donald Trump was elected president by the Electoral College votes after Hillary obtained more popular votes. Because of this, the scrutinization of the Electoral College was at an all-time high, and Guelzo and Hulme felt the need to defend it. They open the piece with a line exclaiming that
“There is hardly anything in the Constitution harder to explain, or easier to misunderstand, than the Electoral College.”
The significance of opening with this line is to introduce the idea that the reader may not fully understand the concepts of the Electoral College. Insinuating that this essay will enlighten their perspective so they can create better assumptions.
They immediately dive into the arguments made against the Electoral College. They use quotes from The New York Times, The Washington Post and Time Magazine, which are historically reliable sources, to allude that they did not just selectively pick easily refutable claims. When describing the evidence of their naysayers, Guelzo and Hulme do seem to adopt a tone that suggests their opponents are overreacting. They utilize words such as “scathing attack”, “complained”, and “demand” to represent the other side as a bit ridiculous in their claims about racial issues, political polarization, campaigning influence, and voter suppression.
So, after placing the opposing arguments first, they then begin their refutation of those claims separated into five categories. A fact that they repeatedly underscore is that “the Electoral College is the only method specified by that document for selecting the president of the United States.” They are hoping to help naïve voters comprehend the absence of a popular vote mention within the Constitution. However, this seems a bit ineffective and it draws a similar connection to how certain branches of religion sometimes weaponize or manipulate the Bible’s words. Nonetheless in this section Guelzo and Hulme offer clear evidence within the constitution and focus on hitting that nerve.
Within their piece, they definitely place the Founding Fathers and the Constitution in a place of superiority. In doing so I think they fall short by consequentially criticizing the American people. They seem to be speaking to the American voters, but more so the younger generation. With the presence of the phrases “misunderstand”, “stupidity”, “misguided”, “poorly comprehended” and “worst human impulses” it connotes more of an attack on people, and those who specifically do not understand the full story of the Electoral College. This possibly suggests that Americans have tendencies to blindly follow popularized beliefs without researching all the facts.
I think their essay opens the conversation on how we as Americans have defined our democracy. Guelzo and Hulme seem to view these federal doctrines as the soul and center of American culture. Through their writing, they aspire to engender concern, and ultimately “protect the nation” and defend the Electoral college. In doing so it comes into question if they are truly defending democratic principles to benefit the country, or if are they safeguarding the politicians they idolize due to their internal skepticism and fear of giving too much power to the people. Nevertheless, it offers valid insight and clearly outlines the influence of federalism in America.
Against The Electoral College
Alternatively, in the Ted Talk “One Person, One Vote” Justin Curtis frames a very different argument, based in substantial data, for why the Electoral College system is corrupt. In this meticulously crafted speech, Curtis offers an urgent and poignant tone, that places demand on the audience. He begins by relating to the average American voter by similarly expressing American values, and boldly claims
“our presidential elections effectively disenfranchised millions of Americans.”
By utilizing this phrase and phrases alike, he is preaching that this phenomena is directly effecting countless Americans, not just a minute community, and therefore deserves to be addressed.
He then touches on the idea of political campaigns. When talking about these campaign trials there is a purposeful abundance of math equations he uses. The plethora of numbers and formulas that Curtis exposes is critical to his claim. They serve multiple purposes. He includes them to increase his credibility with tangible data, and I believe he also is attempting to show that this system reduces American citizens down to a number. Largely dehumanizing them. This is strategic move, and he realizes that for most people this is a tough pill to swallow. It inadvertently expresses that the idolized politicians do not care about the audience, and that they are just a useless number.
He also consciously extracts examples from both parties, and seems to specifically provide statistics from relatively respected presidents. He is aware of the partisan nuances that accompany this debate a remains neutral.
A prominent word that he emphasizes various times throughout the speech is “spectator”. The calculated use of this word seems to serve as his way of nudging the ‘average joe’. A spectator of a sport is simply captivated by the players, and lives vicariously through them. Americans, who are romanticized for their stardom and glory, do not want to hear that they are a mere spectator in their future. Drawing this undesirable connection, Curtis is trying to belittle the electoral process in the eyes of citizens. This may be a key moment noting that the government might enforce this system to give Americans the illusion or sensation of choice, when, as Curtis exclaims again
“your vote might not make a difference, but your voice does”
He plays into this distinct idea and weaves it in his argument. In his assertion, he refers to the other side of the debate as a radical and nonsensical. He maintains a condescending tone when on the topic, with phrases such as “straw man arguments”, “idiosyncrasies”, “crazy”, “sinister”, “unjust and unjustifiable”. This accusatory tone can be interpreted as a direct dismissal of his protesters, and may not appeal to observers. When mentioning the naysayers, it seems like he quickly brushes off the claims and follows with a patronizing challenge. This is a potential blind spot in his argument.
However, a strong point he makes is within his refutation is based on race relations. Contrary to the article above he goes into further detail on the historical significance of slaves and the three-fifths clause. This section calls into question how we allow historical principles to manifest in today, when they were cultivated upon the ideals of racial discrimination and segregation. And is the desire to preserve them indicative of the nations robust prejudiced nature? Overall he gives examples to back his claims that resonate with the audience and are relevant to the topic. In his speech Curtis explicitly targets the people. He seems to be preaching to the average American, but also castigating the government. This can both benefit and discredit his views.
“we can forge a government of the people, by the people, for the people”
With this as his closing line he is aggregating a more positive connotation and is really pushing to inspire action, not diminish it.
Mapping Out The Electoral College
Believe it or not those two maps are attempting to display the same data. It is key to note that this is the most prevalent medium in which Americans consume the Electoral College statistics. Right away each map creates a unique narrative surrounding partisanship. The distinct blue and red. These maps offer a pervasive influence over someone’s opinion of the Electoral College. Because it is the most common form of Electoral College media, it majorly affects different partisan views. These swayed perceptions can be interpreted as the fault of the consumer, or as a fatality in the Electoral College narrative.
Nonetheless, the lower map was the chosen delegated poster child for Electoral College maps. It is the perspective map for the current presidential election. It is notable that delegates chose this map as the means to represent our democracy. This translation of democracy, however, excludes a large population, and generalizes regions with the use of one color per state. When, in fact, there many different party affiliations present in all states.
When republicans see an expanse of red on the lower map, they are more inclined to accept that version of democracy, the Electoral College, than democrats. Democrats are more likely to accept the upper map. An entirely different definition of democracy.
Focusing on either map could lead to different perceptions of the Electoral College and the election in general, creating massive divides. It is evident especially in today’s climate.
These respective maps do not seem to operate in the argument of for or against Electoral College necessarily. But, they reiterate a different perspective on how the governing bodies decide to portray their image to the American people. Are these cartographical choices calculated and deliberate to sway viewpoints and preserve electoral systems, or are they just misinterpreted? Either way it is important to realize that the issue lies in believing that any single map can ever tell the whole story. The designers of these maps had clear aims to manipulate different outlooks. None are right, and none are wrong necessarily, but they all allow you to interpret the results differently.
Concluding
The Electoral College is a system that is undoubtedly symbolic of the state our country is in today. It reveals covert nuances and spotlights lots of critical controversies within our governing bodies. It has remained constant for over two hundred years. With the impending idea of whether or not to uphold or abolish it, the underlying implications of democratic ideals, racial priorities, media consumption, and partisan biases are essential to consider. Leaving many Americans with the complicated question: does democratically voting to abolish a system that is supposed to uphold democracy substantially democratic? Not to mention that that very system could also be threatening our democracy. Just another multifaceted issue that needs to be addressed by citizens in this ‘democratic’ nation.
Work Cited
2020 presidential election results. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://edition.cnn.com/election/2020/results/president?iid=politics_election_bop
A Great Example of Better Data Visualization: This Voting Map GIF. (n.d.). Retrieved November 15, 2020, from https://www.core77.com/posts/90771/A-Great-Example-of-Better-Data-Visualization-This-Voting-Map-GIF
Guelzo, A., Allen Guelzo is the Henry R. Luce Professor of the Civil War Era, Drutman, L., & Bhidé, A. (n.d.). In Defense of the Electoral College. Retrieved November 15, 2020, from https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/in-defense-of-the-electoral-college
Cosner Rhetoric 