A commenter on a recent Pierre Lemieux post wrote:
The only shot Trump has (and had) at the Presidency is due to the arcane system used in America to elect Presidents (why not use direct presidential elections like the rest of the world? … it is so much clearer and easy to understand! … even France abandoned electoral colleges in 1962!!)
The commenter could be right about the presidency of other countries. I don’t know enough to know.
But if he extends it to Prime Ministers, he’s wrong. The Parliamentary system I grew up with, as a Canadian, eh, is one in which the Prime Minister is the one who’s head of the party with a majority of the members of Parliament. (Or, if it’s a coalition government, the Prime Minister is the head of the party that has put together a coalition that contains a majority of Parliament. That’s the case with Justin Trudeau in Canada, whose coalition depends on having NDP members.) Britain, New Zealand, and Australia have similar parliamentary systems.
It’s very similar to an electoral vote system. Your party can get fewer votes than the other major party, but if they’re distributed right, you can get a majority of the seats in Parliament or, at least, more seats than the other major party. That actually happened in Canada twice in the last 10 years. In the September 2021 election, if the candidate whose party won the most votes had become Prime Minister, we would be referring to Erin O’Toole as Prime Minister O’Toole. In the October 2019 election, if the candidate whose party won the most votes had become Prime Minister, we would have referred to the Prime Minister in late 2019 as Prime Minister Andrew Scheer.
I wrote about this in 2021. One commenter made a very good point. I’ll quote the parts I agree with:
A popular vote for President comes with its own problems.
1. You incentivize corruption in your strong holds. For example, Democrats in California don’t need to cheat to win California. But if adding 100k votes could be meaningful generally, then why not? This isn’t dem specific; Republicans in Republican strongholds would face the same incentive.
2. You would need uniform voting rules. Far from obvious that is ideal. If you don’t have uniform voting rules, then in a real sense the popular vote isn’t the popular vote.
3. How do you deal with recounts on a national stage if the vote is close?
Note: The pic above is of Parliament Hill in Ottawa.
READER COMMENTS
John Hall
Apr 22 2024 at 9:23am
The criticism of the Electoral College that is on the firmest footing is that state states have greater representation than they would get in a popular vote. The smallest most targeted reform to ameliorate that effect would be to set how many votes each state gets equal to the number of representatives in the House of Representatives. This would get it closer to the result of a popular vote without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It would require a constitutional amendment, however. Alternately, if Congress (or rather, Democrats) really wanted, they could dramatically increase the House of Representative, which would reduce the impact of Senate effect in the Electoral College.
Arguments to change what we do because other countries do things differently are typically short-sighted hogwash. As you note, the US has a Presidential system rather than a Parliamentary system. It makes more sense to compare how the US elects its President compared to other countries with non-ceremonial Presidents. The US has a significantly better economic and political record than these countries [1]. It’s like Chesterton’s Fence; the Electoral College has a purpose within the broader system, and if you change only that without thinking through the implications everywhere, then you have a problem. In this sense, bigger reforms can counterintuitively make more sense than smaller reforms that are poorly targeted. For instance, if we remove the Electoral College and at the same time make the US a Parliamentary system, then you are on a firmer footing when comparing to what other countries do.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_system#Presidential_republics_without_a_prime_minister
Craig
Apr 22 2024 at 9:56am
“The smallest most targeted reform to ameliorate that effect would be to set how many votes each state gets equal to the number of representatives in the House of Representatives.”
Of course that number includes illegal aliens. The risk remains that the mode of vesting political authority may be perceived, not just as arcane, but as illegitimate, ab initio.
johnson85
Apr 22 2024 at 4:47pm
I would say that’s just the system working exactly as it was intended, which was necessary to get smaller population states to agree to give up autonomy under a federal system.
If there is a criticism of the electoral college that is on sound footing, I would say it’s that the relevant divide is not between large population states and small population states (or even between states in general), but between densely populated urban areas and relatively sparsely populated rural areas.
I’m not sure tweaking the electoral college really responds to this though. I still think most of our problems could be addressed on a national level with more federalism and within states with more subsidiarity. But most people like the idea of telling other people what to do (and especially so those that live in urban centers), so neither of those solutions are political winners.
Thomas L Hutcheson
Apr 23 2024 at 11:39am
Increasing the size of the House would be a good idea. The average district ought to be ~ equal to the smallest one-district State. Or state representation in Congress by proportionality rather than geographic districts.
Craig
Apr 22 2024 at 9:40am
“arcane system”
VA plan met NJ plan and the CT compromise was born. Is this necessarily fair to CA which now only gets two senators? No. If that costs us the Republic, that’s a sacrifice I’m willing to make.
But notwithstanding consider Federalist 39:
“The proposed Constitution, therefore, is, in strictness, neither a national nor a federal Constitution, but a composition of both. In its foundation it is federal, not national; in the sources from which the ordinary powers of the government are drawn, it is partly federal and partly national; in the operation of these powers, it is national, not federal; in the extent of them, again, it is federal, not national; and, finally, in the authoritative mode of introducing amendments, it is neither wholly federal nor wholly national.” [federal was short for confederal at the time, the word federal can be confusing to the modern reader because the federal government is often thought of as the national government today] James Madison under pseudonym Publius
So of course this isn’t ‘arcane’ its just ‘the system’ where there are undeniable aspects in that system where political authority is vested in ways that obviously don’t comport with the general principle of ‘one man, one vote’
The divisiveness is such that the mode of vesting political authority is being challenged in two important areas, from the left the Electoral College, and from the right the fact that illegal aliens count for apportionment purposes. To me the fact these debates linger in the marketplace of ideas with any vigor leads me to believe that a political fracture, while still a low probability event, is more likely than it would otherwise be. The constitutional framework should be the ‘self-evident’ cornerstone of American exceptionalism and even that is being challenged.
Kevin Corcoran
Apr 22 2024 at 10:28am
This post reminds me of a video that makes a similar point about how the UK’s parliamentary elections work. The video in question is made by someone who favors something more like direct national elections and is displeased with how the UK election in question came out, but the underlying point is the same – indeed, if anything the UK’s system seems, in practice, far more prone to giving a majority of political power to a party getting a distinct minority of the votes, relative to how the electoral college works. Again, the point I’m making here isn’t about whether a more direct form of elections would be better or worse – that’s a separate topic – but simply that the US system isn’t all that unique in its limitations on direct elections for the chief executive.
robc
Apr 22 2024 at 11:02am
One “fix” within the electoral college system would be to require all states to adopt the ME/NE system.
The 2 “senate” electors go to the statewide winner, the others are assigned by congressional district. Suddenly “stronghold” states are back in play, as Republicans have reasons to campaign in parts of NY and democrats have reasons to campaign in parts of Kentucky.
Instead of safe states, there would be safe districts. But lots of districts would be in play. It would probably lead to more gerrymandering issues, but so be it.
robc
Apr 22 2024 at 11:08am
Forget to add, this really helps from a fraud concern perspective. Fraud in a single location, cannot turn a national election, or even a big state election. It could flip at most 3 EC votes.
Which in a close enough race, could be enough, but generally its a little more protection against fraud.
Rick
Apr 22 2024 at 11:41am
My objection to using the popular vote has always been that a minority of less than 50% can elect the President. Most, if not all, states all have a run-off system for the general election. Would a popular vote presidential election have a run-off? Would it be nation-wide run-off or only in the states where there was no clear majority winner? Granted, with a two-party system, the chances for needing a run-off are reduced, but not impossible.
vince
Apr 22 2024 at 6:55pm
With (instant) run-off voting, third parties would become more popular in that a vote for them is not a throwaway vote. The two-party duopoly attacks it at every chance.
Monte
Apr 22 2024 at 11:45am
Like wise old Aesop warned us, we should be careful what we wish for. The reality of a national popular vote is certain to fall way short of any expectation. Even so, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is gaining traction and would circumvent the constitutional requirement for states to define a method to appoint is electors in accordance with Article II/Section 1/Clause 2, effectively nullifying the Electoral College (EC). If this were to happen, the power to elect the President would rest solely in the hands of the largest states and cities, greatly diminishing the voice of our least populated ones.
We seem to have forgotten what our founders clearly understood: the EC makes it impossible for population-dense regions of the country to control the presidency. It is essentially a proxy for liberty. And liberty? Well…
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!” – Ben Franklin
vince
Apr 22 2024 at 7:01pm
In grade school I was taught that the electoral college countered mob rule.
Jose Pablo
Apr 26 2024 at 12:55am
President would rest solely in the hands of the largest states and cities, greatly diminishing the voice of our least populated ones
No, just “greatly diminishing” the outsized voice of the least populated ones in both the Senate (a legislative power powerful enough to turn the President powerless in, for instance, sending aid to Ukraine) AND the Presidency. The Senate is enough. It the lest populated ones want even more power they should pay more taxes (no taxation without “enough” representation).
We seem to have forgotten what our founders clearly understood: the EC makes it impossible for population-dense regions of the country to control the presidency. It is essentially a proxy for liberty. And liberty? Well…
No, what our founders clearly understood (and the founders weren’t God, anyway), is that the “proxy for liberty” was to have as many as possible equally powerful powers (the Presidency, the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the Supreme Court) elected in different ways and limiting each other ability to legislate.
The Founders were looking for “gridlock” to avoid any “excess of legislation” (see Hamilton). Which, by the way, makes clear that they weren’t omniscient since they miserably failed in this regard.
Andrew_FL
Apr 22 2024 at 12:58pm
If we implemented a system whereby the winner of of a plurality of the national vote automatically wins the presidential election it could lead to a situation where there are dozens of candidates and the winner gets only a small fraction of the total vote. It could lead to the election of Presidents with support overwhelming concentrated in a single state.
Thomas L Hutcheson
Apr 23 2024 at 11:45am
Rank order voting.
Jose Pablo
Apr 26 2024 at 12:32am
Again, this has been solved in most places in a very simple way (you know, there is life outside the US). You have a nationwide run-off if no candidate gets more than 50% of the popular vote in the first round.
It couldn’t be more simple.
And remember that POTUS’ powers are very limited by a bi-cameral legislative power elected in two completely different ways. A very powerful Senate (by international standards) gives equal representation to each state independently of the number of federal taxpayers inhabiting each particular state.
steve
Apr 22 2024 at 1:22pm
I think “most’, “more” and “majority” keep getting mixed up. In neither of the 2 elections David cited did someone win the majority ie most of the votes. Some candidate just won more than anyone else. A parliamentary system allows you to still have a government even if no one won most of the votes. The minority parties can ally forming a government that will ensure that whoever rules has more votes than anyone else, often a majority. The smaller party(s) in the alliance get to have power they would not have had otherwise and if the larger party does not honor their position the alliance can fall apart.
What is unique, I think, about the US system is that a party can have less votes than the other party. The party that ends up ruling may have neither more votes, nor a majority and need not make any alliances with a minority party in order to govern. While you can find thousands of references to the tyranny of the majority doesnt it seem odd that the tyranny of the minority gets little attention?
Steve
David Henderson
Apr 22 2024 at 4:14pm
You write:
That is NOT unique. That’s the point of my post about Canada. In the last 2 federal elections, Trudeau’s Liberal Party got fewer votes than the Conservative Party and yet he became Prime Minister.
steve
Apr 22 2024 at 5:20pm
He only become Prime minister by forming an alliance. You have to find a party that believes your ideas are acceptable enough to their voters that they can safely work together. The total votes obtained by his party and the party he allied with were many more than the Conservatives received. So, AFAICT looking at Parliamentary votes in general, not just Canada, the party in charge always has more votes than anyone else either directly through voting or by alliance.
In the US, you can receive fewer votes and not have to form an alliance and still win.
Steve
David Henderson
Apr 22 2024 at 7:08pm
Good point. I’ll see if I can find a counterexample. I think it will be true of the elder Trudeau, but I’m not sure.
Kevin Corcoran
Apr 23 2024 at 10:14am
Regarding a possible counterexample, there’s one in the video I linked in my above comment. Granted, this refers to the UK, not Canada, but Steve’s specifically frames his claim as regarding “Parliamentary votes in general, not just Canada”, saying of Parliamentary systems that “the party in charge always has more votes than anyone else either directly through voting or by alliance.” In the election being discussed in the video, the Conservative party got 37% of the votes overall, but ended up with not just a Conservative PM, but also 51% of the seats in Parliament and, as the video notes, 51% of the seats effectively becomes 100% of the control, regardless of the alliances formed by other parties. That is, the other Parliamentary parties combined collected 63% of the total votes while collectively only getting 49% of the seats, so even if they all formed a unified alliance on every issue and every vote against the Conservative party (itself highly unlikely), the combined effect of that could not overcome the Parliamentary advantage held by the Conservative party, attained through only 37% of the votes.
David Henderson
Apr 23 2024 at 10:42am
Thanks, Kevin. It would have been helpful if the video had identified the specific UK election at issue. But my guess is that it’s the one that robc discussed in his (her?) post.
Kevin Corcoran
Apr 23 2024 at 10:58am
The video discusses it as an election that had just taken place, and based on when the video was posted, that would make the election in question the 2015 UK General Election. This lines up with what the Wikipedia articles shows, where it notes the Conservative party “won 330 of the 650 seats and 36.9% of the votes, giving them a majority of ten seats (not including the Speaker, who cannot vote or debate and must remain impartial). This won them the right to govern the country alone and the right for their leader, David Cameron, to continue as Prime Minister.”
robc
Apr 22 2024 at 7:17pm
I don’t know if its happened in Canada, but I am pretty sure it has in the UK, but in a first past the post system, it is easy to win a majority of seats in parliament while having a plurality, at best, of votes, and possibly not even a plurality.
robc
Apr 22 2024 at 7:57pm
First example I found, Feb of 1974:
Labour 301 seats, 11.6MM votes
Conservatives 297 seats, 11.8MM votes
Liberals 14 seats, 6.1 MM votes
Assorted others, 23 seats.
It resulted in a hung parliament, and negotiations failed, so Labour ended up forming a minority government. It didnt last long and new election was held in Oct 1974.
David Henderson
Apr 22 2024 at 11:39pm
Thanks, robc.
dennis e miller
Apr 22 2024 at 10:27pm
I haven’t heard many people on the Right complaining about the Electoral College — only the Left. But I’m sure if the tables were turned and the Left were mostly the rural people and the Right were the urbanites, they would suddenly see the wisdom in the EC. In the Senate every state is equal. In the House every person is equal (or nearly so). The president is a combination of both. I think it’s a great system because a president has to appeal to a broader population and not just a few heavily populated areas.
David Henderson
Apr 23 2024 at 10:47am
Dear Commenters,
I found a counterexample in Canada to steve’s claim above about the United States being unique.
It’s the 1979 election in Canada. The Progressive Conservative Party got 35.9% of the votes and the Liberal Party got 40.1% of the votes. But the PCs got enough seats (136 in a Parliament of 282 seats) to form a minority government without a coalition. It didn’t last long, by the way.
Here’s the link.
David Henderson
Apr 23 2024 at 10:50am
1896 is another counterexample to steve’s claim. In this case, the party that won, the Liberal Party, got a minority of the votes but a comfortable majority of the seats. That government lasted a typical 4 years.
steve
Apr 23 2024 at 2:05pm
Looks like I am wrong. I keep forgetting that the “seats” are an intermediary step. It does look as though it doesnt happen often and it does look like it has not favored just one party.
Steve
David Henderson
Apr 23 2024 at 11:48pm
Thanks, steve.
Thomas L Hutcheson
Apr 23 2024 at 11:33am
At least a bit of the US problem is that Puerto Rico and DC are not yet states which helps over-weight acres vs people in the Senate and Electoral College.
Another part is party nominations by primary election which tends to favor more extreme candidates and nominees and base mobilization vs persuasion of median voters as electoral strategy.
Jose Pablo
Apr 26 2024 at 12:10am
But if he extends it to Prime Ministers, he’s wrong. The Parliamentary system I grew up with, as a Canadian, eh, is one in which the Prime Minister is the one who’s head of the party with a majority of the members of Parliament
No, he doesn’t extend it to Prime Ministers so he wasn’t wrong.
Having an executive power elected by the legislative power is a way worse solution than having an executive power directly elected by the people (which basically means that the Canadian system and many others in Europe are worse than the American one). On this see Scalia’s extremely interesting remarks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ggz_gd–UO0
The point of this commenter was that once you have two different equally powerful legislative powers elected in two different ways and with significantly powerful veto powers (ask the Ukrainians), the most sensible way of electing an equally powerful legislative power is by direct presidential elections.
The only mistake of this commenter was the “like the rest of the world” part. He should have written “Like the rest of the countries where the executive power is directly elected by the people and not by the legislative power”
Comments are closed.