Democracy in Spite of Itself Jeffrey Weng • A Review of Tara Ross's Enlightened Democracy: The Case for the Electoral College Winter 2004

In her recent contribution to the debate in the Electoral College, Enlightened Democracy, Tara Ross responds to the hotly contested and protracted presidential election of 2000, in which former Vice President Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote necessary to attain the presidency. Ross, a Republican, defends both the legitimacy of the election of George W. Bush and the electoral system that put him into office.

First, she addresses the contention that, since presidential election procedure was one of the last things discussed at the 1787 Constitutional Convention, it was a hasty compromise meant to keep the convention from falling apart so close to the end. On the contrary, she argues, it was well considered and well thought out, and to back this up she cites Alexander Hamilton’s comment in Federalist No. 68: “If the manner of it [the presidential election process] be not perfect, it is at least excellent.”

This is a specious argument. It is based on the comments of one participant of the convention; Hamilton’s quotation is far from an analysis of the process by which the plan was formed. Ross merely asserts that “Founding Father knows best.” Furthermore, the essays of The Federalist were meant to convince the American populace of the Constitution’s viability; the authors would doubtless have given the Constitution a favorable spin.

Ross’s second argument centers on the winner-take-all system of the Electoral College. Under this system, the presidential candidate who wins the most votes in a particular state receives all of its electoral votes. Ross contends that this achieves a number of highly desirable objectives (most of which she ascribes to the Founding Fathers). For instance, the presidential candidates are forced to build broad, nationwide coalitions of voters in order to win electoral votes, rather than focusing merely on regions where they enjoy high support, thus creating what Ross terms “reasonable majorities.” Also, the magnifying effect that electoral votes have on the margin of victory preserves the two-party system, which she says is inherently more stable than a multi-party system. National politics are kept moderate by stamping out small, extremist, and regionalist factions.

This is perhaps the most disingenuous argument in the entire book, for it hides a partisan bent. Translated into everyday language, it amounts to saying that were it not for the Electoral College, candidates (i.e. Democratic candidates) would be able to win by appealing to the more densely populated urban regions (i.e. Democratic strongholds). Furthermore, Ross fails to clarify why some majorities are more “reasonable” than others. Why should majorities of people in, say, the South and the Midwest be more reasonable than majorities in the Northeast and on the West Coast? This is hardly a politically inclusive argument for the Electoral College, despite Ross’s claim that the evidence alone, independent of her own political bias, supports the current system.

In her final point, Ross addresses the problem of a candidate losing the popular vote while winning the electoral vote. She basically dismisses the problem as insignificant compared with the benefits, saying that since it has happened only three times in over two hundred years of presidential elections, the problem is so unlikely that worrying about it would be a waste of time.

How much imperfection in the system are the American people willing to tolerate? One would tend to believe that each voter wishes his vote to count as one vote, nothing less. Thus, to have a majority vote for one candidate only to see him lose would defeat the point of voting altogether. The minority in the popular vote (of which Ross admits she was a member in 2000) in such a case would doubtless be pleased, but its very possibility ought to appear intolerable to anyone with a fundamental sense of justice.

In attempts to deal neutrally with political problems, it is easy to fall back on one’s own prejudices. Unfortunately, in seeking to settle an old debate by a neutral examination of the evidence, Ross falls into that trap by seeking to justify the unjustifiable. Fairness dictates that each vote, no matter where it is cast, be counted equally.

Jeffrey Weng is a freshman in Calhoun College. This article is excerpted from his review for Townhall.com and is available at www.townhall.com/bookclub/ ross.html.