Content area
Full Text
Why the Electoral College Is Bad for America. By George C. Edwards III. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004; pp xvii + 198. $26.00.
In advance of the 1996 and 2000 elections, Yale University Press published primers on the Electoral College by Lawrence Longley and Neal Peirce, longtime foes of the institution. Each book opened with an amusing "fantasy," portraying chaos in the aftermath of the upcoming election as a consequence of the workings of the College. Reality upped the ante in 2000, and then Longley passed away in 2001, bringing the short series to a close. However, just on time for the 2004 contest, George Edwards stepped in to keep up the assault on America's system of electing presidents. What's wrong with the Electoral College? Edwards's main complaints are (1) unfairness, because individuals' votes are not equally weighted; (2) complexity, by contrast with a contest in which the winner is whoever gets the most votes nationwide; and (3) risk, of the election being thrown to the House in the event that no candidate receives a majority of the electoral vote.
The appeal of votes "counting equally" is somewhat illusory. Political scientists know, even if laymen often fail to appreciate, that in large-scale elections, all votes are exceedingly unlikely to matter, in the sense of making or breaking a tie. Moreover, in quoting Reynolds v. Sims on political equality, Edwards implicitly concedes that this principle is of comparatively recent vintage. Electoral rules that accommodate slight variations in individual voting power are the norm worldwide and were common in U.S. history before the Supreme Court parachuted into the political thicket with Reynolds and related cases...