Democrats Find — in Madison — an Ally in Abolishing the Electoral College

Replacing the Electoral College with a national popular vote is high on the Democratic wish list. Their criticism of how America chooses its chief executive echoes objections by “the Father of the Constitution,” President Madison, in whom they find an ally.With the expiration of the 118th Congress this month, Senators Durbin, Schatz, and Welch’s constitutional amendment “to abolish the Electoral College” expired. It aimed “to provide for the direct election of the president and vice president,” expanding campaigns beyond swing states.Mr. Schatz wrote that “the person who gets the most votes should win” and “no one’s vote should count for more based on where they live.” Mr. Durbin called the Electoral College an “18th century invention that disenfranchises millions.” Messages on whether they plan to reintroduce their amendment went unanswered.Five times in American history, candidates who earned the most popular votes have lost the presidency. Since two of those elections — President George W. Bush in 2000 and President Trump in 2016 — occurred this young century, the issue is back on the public’s mind.Prior to Mr. Bush, America had gone 112 years without the loser of the popular vote prevailing. That winner, President Benjamin Harrison, unseated President Cleveland. Twelve years before, President Hayes had also won thanks only to the Electoral College.Although Mr. Trump, like Mr. Bush, won reelection and the popular vote, he did so by sweeping all seven swing states. Democrats argue that Vice President Harris might have triumphed in a popular vote system by running up numbers in populous blue areas where citizens had less incentive to vote. An attorney who argued two cases before the Supreme Court, David O. Stewart, is the author of “Madison’s Gift: Five Partnerships that Built America.” The book digs into the fourth president’s genius for forging connections that helped advance his goal of creating a more perfect union. “Madison,” Mr. Stewart told me via email, argued “for electing the president by popular vote at the Philadelphia Convention. But there were only a few delegates taking that position; so, he ended up helping to contrive the Electoral College approach in a committee meeting.” Proponents of the Electoral College argue that it prevents large states from picking the president. But now swing states are the deciders, just as massive Virginia ended up producing four of the first five presidents, including Madison, anyway.Despite the advantage the system gave his home state, Madison said that “local considerations must give way to the general interest.” His foresight was confirmed when his predictions that the Electoral College would exacerbate sectionalism and entrenched political parties came to pass. “Many of the Framers,” Mr. Stewart wrote, “expected that most presidential elections would be decided in the House of Representatives, which didn’t happen.” Madison lived to see “some messy episodes,” including the 1800 and 1824 elections, that redoubled his resolve. In 1801, President Jefferson and Vice President Burr tied in the Electoral College but the House picked Jefferson, who won more popular votes. The 12th Amendment of 1804 offered some reform. But in 1824, the House chose President John Quincy Adams over President Jackson, who had earned a plurality. Seeing the danger a year before Adams-Jackson, Madison wrote of his strong opposition to winner-take-all state elections allocating electoral votes. He maintained that the system disenfranchised those that voted against the preference of the state’s majority. Madison’s belief that winner-take-all elections were undemocratic, he wrote, prevailed among most of the Constitutional Convention. If not a nationwide popular vote, he suggested awarding electors by district — which only Nebraska and Maine do today — as a step in the right direction.“The district mode,” Madison wrote, “was mostly, if not exclusively, in view when the Constitution was framed and adopted.” But it was “exchanged” for the “winner-take-all” model “as the only expedient for baffling the policy of the particular states which had set the example.” Partisan resentment poisoned the nation in the wake of elections where popular vote losers were inaugurated. Those who voted against Messrs. Adams, Hayes, and Harrison blamed the Electoral College as opponents of Messrs. Bush and Trump do today. In last week’s Gallup poll, 61 percent of American adults said they’re “dissatisfied” with how democracy is working. “The people at large,” Madison wrote, were “the fittest” to choose the president. Expect his words to be invoked in the push to address their concerns and abolish the Electoral College.

Democrats Find — in Madison — an Ally in Abolishing the Electoral College

More from the New York Sun

Can Trump Hope for a Useful Agreement With Iran?

House Votes To Kill Trump’s Canada Tariffs, With Six Republicans Breaking With the President

Democrats Demand Investigation Into Bondi’s Apparent Monitoring of Lawmakers Who Review Unredacted Epstein Files

More from the New York Sun

Can Trump Hope for a Useful Agreement With Iran?

House Votes To Kill Trump’s Canada Tariffs, With Six Republicans Breaking With the President

Democrats Demand Investigation Into Bondi’s Apparent Monitoring of Lawmakers Who Review Unredacted Epstein Files

College Athletes Beware: California’s Jock Tax — Already a Scourge of Professionals — Is Coming for You, Too

Study Suggests AI Chatbots Harbor Liberal Biases in Favor of Gun Control

Jelly Roll’s Message of Faith and Redemption Outshines Foul-Mouthed Scolds at the Grammys

Japan’s Commonsense Conservative Prime Minister Offers a Lesson for Troubled Great Britain

Scientists Create ‘Smart Underwear’ to Monitor Flatulence for Microbiome Research