Political scientists: Electoral College imperfect but it isn't broke

LAWRENCE -- The Electoral College system of electing a U.S. President is not perfect but the predominant view of 37 political scientists in a new book is that it beats the alternatives.

Following the 2000 election, Paul Schumaker, political scientist at the University of Kansas, led a team of 37 political scientists in evaluating the current system and six alternatives. Their study and conclusions appear in "Choosing a President: The Electoral College and Beyond," edited by Schumaker and Burdett Loomis, KU political scientist, and published by Chatham House.

Schumaker says the book evolved as he and other political scientists were being bombarded with questions about the Electoral College system and alternative systems for selecting a president.

Often voters are unaware that the vote each citizen casts in a general election is not for a candidate but for the electors who vote in the Electoral College. With the Electoral College, although there are exceptions because election rules vary by state, each state has a popular vote with the winner receiving all of that state's electoral votes, Schumaker says.

The current system was criticized in 2000 because the popular vote winner did not win presidency. Schumaker says the study revealed a false argument against the Electoral College is that it does not represent the popular will.

"We can't know what the popular will is. We only know the popular will as a result of an election," said Schumaker, noting that different election methods can lead to different representations of the popular will.

As an example, Schumaker offers a hypothetical outcome if the U.S. used a popular majority system, in which the winner must receive a majority of all votes cast, rather than the Electoral College in 2000.

"Gore had the plurality of votes. He would have been the popular plurality winner in this election," he said.

Because Gore won the plurality but not a majority, a run-off might be required, he says. Supporters of other candidates, like Reform Party candidate Pat Buchanan, might vote for Bush in the run-off election. That might result in Bush winning the election even though Gore initially won a plurality.

"Which system is the fairer system? There is no right answer to that question," Schumaker says. "In a close election you can get a lot of different outcomes depending on what system you choose. And what political science has taught us over the years is that there is no objective criteria to determine what method is most fair."

The 37 political scientists conducting this study, including eight from KU, examined three alternatives to keep the Electoral College but alter it and three suggestions for abolishing the Electoral College.

The political scientists could not agree on which alternative was best, Schumaker says. Each of the six alternatives had support but each was seen as having potentially negative implications for our political system as a whole. Because there is no consensus about a better alternative, the Electoral College system was viewed as acceptable.

Schumaker says the outcome surprised him. "I didn't think the Electoral College would get as much support as it did. But what I learned in the project was there are many valuable things about the Electoral College.

Ideas explored for changing the Electoral College were

 • The District Plan that allows for electoral votes to be determined within the state's congressional districts rather than the present statewide winner takes all system. For example, if one district in Kansas had voted for the Gore and the others for Bush, then one of Kansas' six electoral votes would have been for Gore.

 • Proportional allocation that proportions electoral votes according to the popular votes won in each state. In Kansas, because Gore received more than one third of the popular vote, he would have had two electoral votes and Bush, four. The fractions get complicated, Shumaker notes.

 • National Bonus Plan that not only uses each state's Electoral College votes but provides the national popular vote winner a bonus of 102 more electoral votes. With this system, Schumaker says, it is almost impossible for a candidate to lose the national total popular vote and lose.

Ideas studied to abolish the Electoral College and use instead were a

 • Popular Plurality System that is the system states now use to elect governors, for example. Whoever gets the most votes wins on a national scale.

 • Popular Majority System that requires a majority to win. If there is no majority winner, a run-off election is required. Since 1960, Schumaker notes that in six presidential elections no candidate got the majority of the popular vote.

 • Instant Run-off that allows voters to list first, second and third choices for president. Australia uses this method and it requires computer analysis. If no candidate gets a majority of the votes then the second and third choice votes are instantly recalculated.