The Electoral College
Every four years or so there is a rather large number of people asking about the Electoral College and why the US uses it rather than a straight popular vote for choosing the President. The short answer is, “Because that’s the way the Constitution is written,” but that doesn’t really answer the question.
The answer revolves around a fundamental flaw in democracy, oppression by the majority. In colloquial terms, “When majority rules the minority gets screwed.”
The US was, and still is, a widely divergent country. Some states are densely populated with large urban areas while others are sparsely populated rural states. Since all these states must work together for the system to function, it is critical that it is not seen as a few dominating the others. For this reason, Congress was split. The House represents the population while the Senate represents the states. Together they ensure than the heavily populated states don’t dominate the sparsely populated states while giving the sparsely populated states a voice doesn’t undermine the Will of the People.
Which brings us to the President, a single man tasked with overseeing the entire country. Once again there is the same problem. How do you give the sparsely populated states a voice without undermining the Will of the People? The simple answer? Do it exactly like you do Congress.
Every district chose electors for the Electoral College, just like Representatives, and an additional two chosen through statewide elections just like Senators. It works. A candidate cannot just focus on one or two heavily populated states and win the election, but he can’t ignore those population centers either.
It began to change in 1820 when states, in an attempt to have a bigger influence in the outcome of the election, began adopting the “winner take all” system for choosing electors. By 1824 most states had moved to the system in an effort to prevent themselves being marginalized in the election. James Madison proposed a Constitutional Amendment mandating the original District Method, but by then it was too late. By then political parties had begun forming and the “winner take all” system allowed them to cement their power bases.
By the 1860s the number of parties had whittled down to two main parties, each focused on specific parts of the country and specific political ideologies. Now they began focusing on State governments, passing laws and regulations making it increasingly difficult for another party to challenge their power. After a hundred forty years of this, it has become impossible for a 3rd Party candidate to achieve the presidency.
Is the Electoral College system flawed? Yes. Has it been manipulated to benefit US duopoly? Yes. Would switching to a straight popular election solve the problem? No, if anything it would make things worse. It would allow a few large cities to virtually dictate the outcome of the Presidential election.