The Limits of Corruption

[billroper]

Mark Evanier links to this article by Timothy Noah that argues for the abolition of the Electoral College. This brought back to mind one argument against abolishing the Electoral College that I've not seen made elsewhere, so I'll make it now.

The Electoral College limits the impact of localized vote fraud.

Once you have illegally manufactured enough votes to win a state, there is currently no great advantage in manufacturing more votes. It runs up the popular vote total -- which is nice -- but it doesn't have any further impact on the election. It also provides a disincentive to illegally manufacture votes for a candidate in a state that he would win anyway like, say, Illinois.

But if you eliminate the Electoral College, then every illegal vote counts.

And I live next door to the city of Chicago.

Or as Joe Kennedy reputedly told his son, John, "I'm not buying one damn vote more than necessary -- I'm not paying for a landslide!"

Comments

[bedlamhouse]

Like, maybe here?

[billroper]

Oh, good. Someone else thought of it too. :)

(Figures that it'd be you...)

[patoadam]

The best argument I know for abolishing the Electoral College is that it would prevent Florida 2000 from ever happening again.

The best argument I know for retaining the Electoral College is that an incumbent has a huge advantage in get-out-the-vote efforts. He can get his/her people in place much sooner than the opponent because he knows much sooner that he/she will be his/her party's candidate. The opponent can counteract this by concentrating his/her get-out-the-vote efforts in battleground states. If the election were decided by nationwide direct popular vote, this strategy would no longer be possible, and the incumbent would have a greater advantage. See the article sdorn linked to recently, arguing that Bush won because his get-out-the-vote effort started earlier and was better organized.

[tigertoy.livejournal.com]

I would argue that the EC is more likely to magnify the impact of local vote fraud (or other improper practices) than to diminish it. If the race is close in a large state, cheating by a few thousand votes can swing a big chunk of electoral votes. In Florida in 2000, 50,000 heavily Democratic voters were intentionally disenfranchised, which was the only thing that made the election close enough that the rest of the madness that ensued was possible. When Bush was given the state, it gave him the whole election. But 50,000 votes wouldn't have changed the national results. For local vote fraud to have any significant chance of affecting the national count you have to be able to influence hundreds of thousands or millions of votes, which should be a lot harder to do without being noticed.

[kevinnickerson.livejournal.com]

It seems like your argument reaches the wrong conclusions.

The electoral college *enchances* the impact of localized vote fraud. It's just a question of picking the right locale. It would only take a couple hundred thousand votes to tilt Ohio and change the election. Without the college it would have taken 3.5 million fraudulent votes.

And with the number of votes needed to swing the election being so much smaller, the odds of detecting the fraud are reduced.

[tnatj.livejournal.com]

I agree with kevinnikerson on his point. The main reason why I advised people not to contest the results in Ohio and Florida too much is the simple fact that the overall popular vote total favored Mr. Bush by a substantial 3-4 million vote margin. I do not see how one can manufacture that many votes from all over the country without being detected.

The Electoral College also has the nasty effect of encouraging voter disenfranchisement behavior, by giving those voters who are able to go to the polls disproportionately represent all their state's inhabitants (not to mention the issue of winner-take-all). Obviously, in the extreme, I, as a selfish voter, would prefer than no other voters go to the polls: I'd much rather be one of the small number of Grand Electors of Michigan than to let all these peons steal away my divine right to be among the select few.

Disenfranchisement activities are a nasty sort of voter fraud; because it can occur outside of the election process, and is so often done under the color of legalities.

We can know that such behavior continues to be a problem, because of the plethora of laws (and several constitutional amendments) passed to discourage it. Sadly, many of these laws are not strictly enforced, and in one case (a section of the 14th Amendment), not enforced at all since it was ratified.

[madfilkentist]

The Electoral College system probably magnifies the effect of vote fraud by allowing concentration of effort in marginal states. On the other hand, it makes correction of suspected fraud or error easier by localizing the problem. Imagine having to do a recount of the whole country's votes in a close election.

But what's really odd about the electoral system as practiced today is that we aren't voting for John Kerry or George Bush -- we're voting for electors who legally can vote for anybody they want, and occasionally do violate their pledges. Yet these electors' names usually (always?) don't even appear on the ballot. I'm surprised that I've never heard of a legal challenge to this omission.

Faithless Elector??

[saagaadaa.livejournal.com]

I am unaware of any instances in which an elector has failed to vote as they were supposed to vote. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to the facts of these violations?

Re: Faithless Elector??

[shsilver.livejournal.com]

The most recent was in 2000, when Barbara Lett-Simmons of Washington DC abstained rather than vote for Al Gore (she said it was to protest Washington D.C.'s colonial status.

In 1988, Margaret Leach of West Virginia voted for Lloyd Bentsen instead of Michael Dukakis (and her vice presidential ballot for Dukakis instead of Bentsen.

In 1976, Mike Padden of Washington voted for Ronald Reagan instead of Gerald Ford. Since he voted for Dole as VP, Dole came out with more electoral votes than the top of the ticket.

In 1972, Roger L. MacBride of Virginia cast his vote for John Hospers (Libertarian) rather than Richard Nixon. In 1976, MacBride was the Libertarian candidate for President.

In 1968, Lloyd W. Bailey voted for George Wallace instead of Richard Nixon. This is the only time a faithless elector was challenged and the two houses decided it should count as cast.

In 1960, Henry D. Irwin voted for Harry Flood Byrd, Sr. instead of Richard Nixon.

In 1956, W.F. Turner of Alabama voted for Walter B. Jones instead of Adlai Stevenson.

In 1948, Preston Parks of Tennessee voted for Strom Thurmond instead of Harry Truman.

This year, Richie Robb of West Virginia has said he will not vote for George Bush. It remains to be seen if he will make good his threat and, if so, who he would vote for.

Re: Faithless Elector??

[madfilkentist]

Wow. I'd known of the 1968 and 1972 cases, but didn't know there were that many! So if it weren't for the Twelfth Amendment, Dole would have been elected President in 1976!