Florida is pretty good at finding itself smack-dab in the middle of electoral vote issues, so now our
Senator Bill Nelson is introducing a constitutional amendment that will kill the Electoral College. Most of my friends probably expect me to oppose this, but I don't. I am anxious to see how his proposal handles those elections where no candidate receives a majority of the votes, which is what happens about a fourth of the time.
It isn't likely that the electoral college has ever functioned as the founders intended. In Federalist Paper #68, Alexander Hamilton described a sort of a statewide caucus of electors, who would meet and cast votes for various candidates at their discretion. He saw dual advantages in removing the choice from those already in Washington and in placing it in the hands of individuals who were more knowledgeable about the offices and candidates than the general populace.
In practice, though, states quickly sought to increase their power by choosing electors committed to voting for one candidate. Winner take all became the custom and by 1860 all states were choosing those electors by popular election. While that may increase the influence of those on the winning side in each state, it disfranchises the rest and can let a less popular candidate win. Eliminating the College assures that the only two officials responsible to all the people are chosen all the people.
A commentator has said Nelson thinks he "knows more than the founders" but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. As noted, their design didn't work as they meant it to, but they knew enough to provide a way to fix it. That is what the senator is trying to do.
I do have one concern, though, and it's a big one. Since 1872 there have been nine elections in which no one got a majority of the popular vote. That means at least nine times a president was chosen against the apparent wishes of the majority. Nelson's text is not yet public so I don't know how he intends to deal with that.
Right now if no candidate gets a majority of the electoral votes, the House of Representatives chooses from the top three. I've never liked that solution as it could turn Congress into a parliament, with the chief executive responsible to it rather than the people.
I'd like to see an instant runoff system, where voters could indicate their second and third choices to be used when no one has a majority. An actual runoff, with campaign and all, would be acceptable but costly , I could also go with an approval system.
Given that this constitutional amendment will need to be approved by 38 states, most of which will lose influence as a result, this will be an interesting discussion but not much else.
Senator Nelson has some other ideas linked to this, but since I am really-really against them, I'll save them for another post.