eBook Securing Democracy: Why We Have an Electoral College download

A very helpful book in understanding the importance of our Electoral College.

The Electoral College is an ambiguous thing. I am not sure this book is getting me to understand it, but since most people don't know how to talk about it, this book is quite useful.

Those looking for a defense of the status quo will find it here. Dr. Gary L. Gregg II put together essays from seven political scholars seeking to justify the unique American method of electing presidents. Gregg holds the Mitch McConnell chair at the University of Louisville where he heads the McConnell Center. Even if readers do not agree with the book’s thesis, they will nevertheless find interesting historical tidbits about the Electoral College.

Republicans did not always defend the Electoral College. Among the party stalwarts who voted to abolish it in 1969 were Gerald Ford, George H.W. Bush, and Robert Dole. When the day comes that Republicans see their prospects of winning are hurt by the Electoral College, then it would not be surprising to see them again change their position on this issue.

The fact is there are both benefits and drawbacks to the Electoral College, (as there are to any of the alternatives). The authors emphasize the former, while minimizing the latter. One benefit is to discourage regional candidates who may be very popular in one part of the country, but who need to win electoral votes from more than a single region to win the election. Another purported benefit is to discourage third parties, thus reinforcing the two-party system.

Though direct election of the president is not the only alternative to the Electoral College, the authors contend the status quo works better than direct elections would. Here are likely consequences of direct elections:
* Spawning a variety of splinter and single-issue parties, thus undermining the two-party system.
* Requiring a run-off election between the top two candidates to ensure the winner gets a majority of the popular votes.
* Incentivizing political deals before run-off elections between the major and minor candidates.
* Undermining our federal system in favor of a national system. “Every diminution of the states in an age of centralization portends further diminution.”

Michael Barone and M.M. Uhlmann make the case that the Electoral College leads candidates and parties toward the middle of the political spectrum, muting conflict and doctrine in order to gain a majority of electoral votes. By contrast, under direct election, “incentives toward moderation…would be severely weakened.” This supposed pressure for moderation and compromise, however, has not worked well during the Obama administration.

The predictions proved wrong about a constitutional crisis in 2000 when the candidate with the most popular votes lost in electoral votes. The public largely accepted the outcome, and talk in Congress about changing the system was short-lived.

Nonetheless, one shortcoming of the status quo is getting worse. There were 20 swing states in 1976. Analysts are predicting that by the 2016 election, there will be only seven or eight swing states, a number that has been steadily shrinking. That means the presidential candidates will spend almost all of their time and money campaigning in the handful of battleground states, while ignoring the reliably red and blue states.
It is no surprise that voter turnout is much higher in swing states than in the rest of the country where the winner of all of a state’s electoral vote is easily predictable. In short, popular votes matter a whole lot more in the few swing states than in most of the nation. In addition, the battleground states receive 7 percent more federal grants than “spectator” states, twice as many presidential disaster declarations, and more exemptions from Superfund enforcement and No Child Left Behind.

There is a viable reform underway that would ensure that every vote in every state would matter. It is a proposal that does not abolish the Electoral College, and therefore retains its benefits without the drawbacks of direct election. It is called the National Popular Vote. Ten states and the District of Columbia have so far enacted the NPV law, which would guarantee the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country. This proposal preserves the Electoral College, but requires that all of the states participating in the intra-state compact will – once the compact is operational – direct that all of their electoral votes be cast for the candidate who wins the most popular votes nationally. No amendment is needed to the Constitution, which already authorizes states to decide how electoral votes are chosen.

The eleven jurisdictions that have signed on possess 165 electoral votes, which is 61 percent of the 270 needed to activate the compact. Newt Gingrich and Jim Edgar have endorsed this plan, as have some GOP legislators in various states. In Illinois, for example, Senators Bill Brady, Frank Watson, and Kirk Dillard voted for the NPV bill when it passed in 2007. Up-to-date information can be found at http://nationalpopularvote.com/

This book was published in 2001 , soon after the disputed election of 2000. It makes a reasonable argument for keeping the Electoral College. However, I still believe we need to reform the process of electing members of congress and the president. My thought would be along the lines of regional (open) primaries where all party candidates would face and compete against each other including the incumbent president and the top five vote receivers of all parties would face one another in succeeding regional primaries with the top three vote receivers facing each other in the november elections for congressional races and the presidency. THe closed primary system denies non party members a chance to select the candidate who appears on the ballot in november.
The electoral vote ensures that the winner of the white house has broad popular support in many states of the union, and not just the 10 most populous states.
The current indivual Federal Electoral COmmission and the various other federal statutes limiting individual campaign donations of individual persons also need to be repealed so that what remains by law is only a reasonably transparent type reporting requirment for campaign donations exceeding $ 500.00 per person, but no limits on donations from individual private citizens to candidates for federal state and local public offices. Donations from corporations, unions, and foreign governments should still be prohibited too. Then , U.S. citizens will be able to look up on the internet who is giving how much to which candidate for office (incumbent or challenger). They can then decide who they might wish to vote for.
terry jennrich

I saw Dr. Gregg on television and really would love to read this book. However, it's not available in ebook format which is how so many of us now read our books.

Dr.. Gregg, won't you please consider making an ebook version? If you need help, I'd be glad to help you with it (without charge). Just email me.