|
In "Electoral College Math 101" (published as "Face It - We're Stuck With the Electoral College"), I explained why proposing a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College is an empty gesture in the first degree, in that it is deliberate and premeditated. However, from the near certainty that the Electoral College is here to stay, it doesn’t necessarily follow that we can’t change it so that it comes closer to reflecting the principle of "one person, one vote."
Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution states: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress...."
What causes the Electoral College to deviate from the "one person, one vote" principle is that the number of Senators is a factor in the Electoral College calculation. The House of Representatives is based on "one person, one vote," but the Senate is based on "one state, two votes." As explained earlier, California--the most populous state--has 33.9 million people and 55 Electors (53 Congressional districts plus two Senate seats). That’s 616 thousand Californians per Elector. Wyoming--the least populous state--has 494 thousand people and three Electors (one Congressional district plus two Senate seats). That’s only 165 thousand Wyomingites per Elector. In other words, one voter in Wyoming has nearly four times the political power of one Californian.
My interpretation of the Constitution is that it doesn’t have to be this way. Notice the wording: "equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled." "May be," not "is." So, while we don’t have to Clintonesquely quibble over what the definition of "is" is, we do have to take a look at what the implication of "may be" may be.
Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution states: "Representatives... shall be apportioned among the several States... according to their respective Numbers [population].... The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative...."
Since the 2000 Census counted 280,849,847 people in the 50 states, one Representative per 30,000 would mean a House consisting of 9,362 members. We would have to extend the Capitol Building down the Mall halfway to the Washington Monument. We would also need 40 more C-SPAN channels.
The specific proportion of Representatives to constituents is regulated by federal statute. Congress long ago departed from the ceiling of one per 30,000, and although the membership of the House used to be expanded following each Census, it stopped at 435 members following the 1910 Census. As a result, the actual proportion today is one Representative per 645,632 people.
But that is what the "is" is, not what the "may be" may be. According to the 2000 Census, which counted 33,871,648 Californians, and taking into account the "one per 30,000" principle, California "may be" entitled to 1,129 Representatives. Adding two Senators to that number results in 1,131 Electors, which would mean one Elector per 29,948 people. Wyoming, with a population of 493,782 "may be" entitled to 16 Representatives, and therefore 18 Electors, or one Elector per 27,432 people. This would give individual Wyomingites only nine percent more political power than Californians, instead of the 3.74 to 1 advantage they now enjoy.
In total, the Electoral College would have 9,483 members. The formula of one per 30,000 people creates 9,362 members from the 50 states and 19 members from the District of Columbia. There would be 100 additional members according to the number of senators, plus two more from the District of Columbia, which is counted in the Electoral College as though it were a state per the 23rd Amendment to the Constitution.
Now, if you think the idea of an Electoral College with 9,483 members sounds nutty, I don't mind. I leave it to you to decide whether this is a serious proposal or a reductio ad absurdum argument that points up how even crazier the idea of abolishing the Electoral College is. This scheme has a much better prospect than abolishing the Electoral College altogether, because it can be implemented by federal statute, which only requires a simple majority in the House and the Senate. Getting the bill through the House would be a snap. Seventeen states, with a total of 304 Representatives, are disadvantaged by the present system. That’s 70 percent of the House that would have a political incentive to vote for the bill. The Senate would be a tougher room. The 17 states disadvantaged by the present system would have only 34 votes, and 51 would be needed to pass the bill.
Last week, Senator Dianne Feinstein’s staff pointed out that in 1979, the Senate voted 51 to 48 for a proposal to abolish the Electoral College. While this was a majority, it was far short of the two-thirds required for a constitutional amendment. This vote suggests that a simple majority on a bill is achievable; however, it also means that 17 Senators from small-population states voted to give away their constituents’ political advantage. The interesting question is, how many of these Senators voted for the constitutional amendment "on principle," knowing full well that it would easily fall short of the 67 votes required to pass, and so wouldn’t cost them politically?
In any case, if the senior Senator from California is serious about reforming the mechanism by which the President is elected, I suggest that she drop the idea of introducing a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College, and instead introduce a bill to amend the Electoral College. It’s a much smaller hurdle.
|
