Today is the day that the Electoral College meets, in 51 locations across the United States. It’s one of those important features by which the United States is constituted as a representative republic, not a direct democracy.

Under the electoral college, a group of people in each state, called electors, vote for the presidential candidate who won the popular vote within the state. Each state gets as many electors as it has in Congress. (“College,” in this case, simply means a collection of people.) The vote of these “electors” on a state-by-state basis is what actually selects the president: the presidential candidate who wins 270 or more of these votes takes over the White House.

As the National Archive observes, “there have been more proposals for Constitutional amendments on changing the Electoral College than on any other subject.”

Today, there are two different, major attempts to change (some would say gut) the electoral college. Under a plan advanced by the group National Public Vote (NPV), state electors would vote not for the candidate who actually won their state, but whoever won the most number of votes nationwide. NPV is bankrolled by, among others, uber-lefty George Soros, though I know several Republicans who are part of the work.

The second major attempt to change the college is to have states apportion their electoral college votes by congressional district. In Michigan, Mitt Romney won more votes that Barack Obama in 9 congressional districts, but will receive zero electoral votes, since Obama won more votes statewide. Under the by-congressional district approach, Romney would have won 9 electors while Obama won 4.

Saul Anuzis, the former chairman of the Michigan Republican Party, is a leading advocate of this second plan. The idea, at least as articulated by The Atlantic, is a naked political power play. One anonymous source tells the magazine, “There’s no kind of autopsy and outreach that can grab us those electoral votes that quickly.” Stupid party, meet evil party, all in one party.

There are several reasons why changing the electoral college as we know it is a bad idea. It would weaken the idea of federalism, the American system by which power is shared by one national government and 50 state governments. Federalism exists in the fact that each state gets at least one vote in the U.S. House and two in the U.S. Senate, regardless of population. The rules of the electoral college are also an act in federalism.
Federalism is not only the American form of government, it is beneficial. As debates over abortion, marriage, and other issues have shown, nationalizing political questions increases political strife. In addition, federalism promotes policy innovation and provides a safety valve. If the government of Michigan proves sufficiently inept, people can move to Indiana, Texas, or elsewhere.

National Popular Vote, for its part, has the added problem of adding to the incentives for voter fraud. Right now, inventing votes in Denver or Richmond affects only the electoral college vote of Colorado or Virginia. Under the NPV, a fraudulent vote anywhere has national importance, which means post-election squabbling all over the country. Do we really want to hear about “hanging chad” in each of the 50 states?

As for voting-by-congressional district, the major problem there is that unlike states, congressional districts have no historical, political, or economic identities. In fact, they are so transitory that they are redrawn–for blatantly political purposes–every 10 years.

But voting by congressional lines is — today at least — politically attractive to the Party of Elephants. Says The Atlantic, “This year, Democratic House candidates won more than 1 million more votes than Republican candidates, but Republicans won 33 more seats.” This suggests (though does not guarantee) that with current congressional lines in place, Republican presidential candidates would do better. The results of the next cycle of redistricting, though, could bite Republicans back, which is just one sign that they shouldn’t proceed. A sound principle of changing procedures in government is, “would I be willing to let my opponents do this?”

Ever under attack, the Electoral College is an important part of American governance. Long live the college!

From The Detroit News: http://apps.detnews.com/apps/blogs/watercooler/index.php?blogid=5986#ixzz2HghXgHWQ