Michael Kazin, a historian at Georgetown University and coeditor of Dissent, delves into the complexities of the Electoral College and its relevance today. He discusses historical criticisms and hypothetical scenarios, shedding light on how partisan interests shape perceptions. Kazin also explores potential reforms and the impact of immigration on voting behavior. He reflects on the enduring nature of activism, drawing parallels with the 1960s Yippie movement, and emphasizes the transformative power of political engagement in the modern landscape.
The Electoral College's design leads to unequal representation that can skew elections, potentially undermining the democratic principle of the popular vote.
Reforming the Electoral College to distribute votes by congressional districts could enhance voter engagement, but faces challenges from entrenched political divisions.
Deep dives
Understanding the Electoral College
The Electoral College is the mechanism by which the United States elects its president, requiring a candidate to gain a majority of the electoral votes rather than the popular vote. Each state has a minimum of three electoral votes, representing its two senators and at least one House representative, which results in significant disparities in representation among states. For example, California, despite its population, can have a scenario where just a few votes could determine the allocation of its electoral votes, potentially skewing the election results toward a minority preference. This system raises questions about its democratic legitimacy, especially as it leads to situations where the candidate with the most popular votes may still lose the presidency.
Contingent Elections and Their Implications
A contingent election occurs when no candidate wins a clear majority of the electoral votes, forcing the decision to the House of Representatives where each state gets one vote, regardless of population size. This scenario can lead to outcomes where candidates who did not win the popular vote can still be elected, creating concerns about fairness and potential civil unrest. The podcast discusses the logistical and political implications of such a situation, including the historical example from 1824 where John Quincy Adams won the presidency despite losing the popular vote. Concerns about fairness are amplified if the situation leads to highly contentious political environments, putting the stability of democratic norms at risk.
Reforming the Electoral College
The proposal for reforming the Electoral College centers on creating a system where electoral votes are distributed by congressional districts rather than by state totals, which could enhance competition and voter engagement nationwide. This would encourage presidential candidates to campaign in a broader array of states, addressing the concerns of voters who feel overlooked. However, there is skepticism about the likelihood of such reforms materializing due to fierce political divisions and the entrenched nature of the current system, which both major parties are hesitant to alter. Historical precedents and attempts at reform demonstrate that while the conversation is ongoing, significant change is unlikely without substantial shifts in the political landscape.
To discuss whether the Electoral College is out of date and in need of reform, Freddy Gray is joined by Michael Kazin – a professor of history at Georgetown University and emeritus coeditor of Dissent. His most recent book, What It Took to Win: A History of the Democratic Party, has just been released in paperback.