George Will has an op-ed in support of the present arrangements in the American Electoral College which has a convention that all Presidential Electors vote as a block for which-ever presidential candidate was first past the post in the state. The legislation that was vetoed would call for California's votes to go to which ever Presidential candidate got the most votes nationally. The caveat was that all other states would have to have the same.

The founders of the American Constitution gave us a textbook of arguments for and against the US Constitution. Both James Madison and Alexander Hamilton touch on the issue of the electoral college in the Federalist Papers.

In Federalist No.39 James Madison argues for the electoral college as an important mix of federalism and nationalism to combine with a nationalist House and federalist Senate to create political cohesion between the branches;

The next relation is, to the sources from which the ordinary powers of government are to be derived. The House of Representatives will derive its powers from the people of America; and the people will be represented in the same proportion, and on the same principle, as they are in the legislature of a particular State.

So far the government is national, not federal.

The Senate, on the other hand, will derive its powers from the States, as political and coequal societies; and these will be represented on the principle of equality in the Senate, as they now are in the existing Congress.

So far the government is federal, not national.

The executive power will be derived from a very compound source. The immediate election of the President is to be made by the States in their political characters. The votes allotted to them are in a compound ratio, which considers them partly as distinct and coequal societies, partly as unequal members of the same society. The eventual election, again, is to be made by that branch of the legislature which consists of the national representatives; but in this particular act they are to be thrown into the form of individual delegations, from so many distinct and coequal bodies politic.

From this aspect of the government it appears to be of a mixed character, presenting at least as many federal as national features.

From Madison's point of view the Electoral College is an important technology that gives both the people and the states an important voice of approval - and veto - to the election of the President who must represent both the people (House) and States (Senate) in faithfully executing the laws stemming from the representatives in either house.

Originally US Senators were appointed by the states, it has only been this century they have been elected directly as representatives.

From Madison's point of view the legislation that was vetoed in California would break the federal nature of the system. Making it a one-electorate nationalist system.

Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No.68 has a different view which is essentially specialist based.

It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture.

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.

A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.

It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.

The choice of several, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of one who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes. And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place.

There is also the genuine fear the the US might fall back into monarchy, or be subsumed by external political intrigue and the republic become little more than despotic. Federalist No.68 is worth a read as it focuses entirely on the election of the President and Vice President in relation to the electoral college.

From Hamilton's point of view, despite the reliance on specialist to cast votes of conscience in relation to maintaining the integrity of the republic as a republican system, the technology is one of decentralisation to avoid skewing the outcome. The Californian legislation which makes a single nation-district would break this.

The Veto

George Will argues that Schwarzenegger's veto was a positive as it preserved the best aspects of the electoral college as a block voting system. One of his arguments for;

The system aims not just for majority rule but rule by certain kinds of majorities . It encourages candidates to form coalitions of states with various political interests and cultures. Such coalitions can be assembled only by a politics of accommodation. So the electoral college system discourages attempts to build narrow ideological or geographical majorities. Today the system is helping the Democratic Party by nudging it to be less of a coastal party -- less reliant on a risky 20-state strategy in presidential elections.

The counter-argument is that blue states like California are really purple and the block voting of the college warps that popular will. Yet Maine is one state which doesnt have electoral college block voting. California can adopt a system like that and still maintain the federal character of the Presidential elections.

Conclusion

I agree that the legislation should be vetoed. I don't consider the Electoral College a particularly good technology anyway, as it makes the system too specialist focused despite the conventions of following popular will in College voting. Without the American commitment to democracy it would be easy to subvert.

This raises an important question for Australian Republican maximillists and technologists who seek a Presidential system with a separate executive - what form should the Presidential electorate take?

Would it be better served by having the states appoint Presidential candidates and then decide them by direct vote? Or a straight popular election? What mix of specialist, election and electorate should be adopted? Present electorates? State electorates? A single national electorate?

cam

A criticism of the electoral college is that it gives too much prominence to the smaller states with its winner takes all electoral technology and warps the population's will such as the popular vote. The American founding fathers used the electoral college to protect against tyranny and usurpation by nobled tyrant, but also to try and balance the 'federal' and 'national' characters of the Washington system.

The Electoral College is an indirect voting mechanism. US citizens vote for representatives who then cast ballots for the US President. The electors do not have to cast their ballots as per the popular will in that state, they can defy the voters if necessary. This was done to protect against tyranny or a noble trying to usurp the democratic system. The convention however is that the electors vote in a block as per the citizen voters wishes. I imagine there would be all sorts of public discord and trouble if they did not.

The number of electoral college votes a state has is in direct proportion to the number of senators and representatives the state has. For instance California has fifty-five electors while Arizona has ten. For a President to be elected they must have a majority of electoral college votes. An advantage of this system is that it tends to legitimize the president-elect as the winner takes all system makes a larger winning margin than the national popular vote.

Most who argue that it is unfair base the injustice of the system on the electors being indirect, the states being winner takes all, and the popular will of the nation not necessarily being reflected in the electoral college outcome. James Madison and Alexander Hamilton defend the electoral college as an electoral method in Federalist Papers No.39 and No.68.

For Madison it was important politically, constitutionally and electorally to balance the federal and national aspects of the Washington System. As a federation, the US system was an amalgam of political equals in the colonies which are now known as the states. It was necessary to bring on board the smaller states in such a way that they would not be politically swamped by the larger ones of Virginia, New York and Pennsylvania. Today the large states are New York and California.

The 'federal' character of the system, such as the Senate and the electoral college keep the smaller states politically within the system as equal partners. The Washington system also contains national character such as the House which expands electorates based on population alone. The national aspect of the electoral college is that the number of electors expands with population, so while Montana gets a discrete voice with its electors, it is swamped by the larger number of electors in Florida.

Madison writes:

The next relation is, to the sources from which the ordinary powers of government are to be derived. The House of Representatives will derive its powers from the people of America; and the people will be represented in the same proportion, and on the same principle, as they are in the legislature of a particular State. So far the government is national, not federal.

The Senate, on the other hand, will derive its powers from the States, as political and coequal societies; and these will be represented on the principle of equality in the Senate, as they now are in the existing Congress. So far the government is federal, not national.

The executive power will be derived from a very compound source. The immediate election of the President is to be made by the States in their political characters. The votes allotted to them are in a compound ratio, which considers them partly as distinct and coequal societies, partly as unequal members of the same society.

The eventual election, again, is to be made by that branch of the legislature which consists of the national representatives; but in this particular act they are to be thrown into the form of individual delegations, from so many distinct and coequal bodies politic.

From this aspect of the government it appears to be of a mixed character, presenting at least as many federal as national features.

Consequently Madison saw it as important for the executive to carry both the federal and national characteristics while maintaining a buffer against the executive being usurped by tyranny with the indirect election that comes through the electors. This also gives the states a voice in vetoing an executive that is not governing, or not going to governing in the federation's interests as well. Hamilton writes:

It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture.

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.

A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.

It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.

The choice of several, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of one who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes. And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place.

The United States has been a stable democracy for two hundred years now but in 1787 there was no guarantee that executive power would pass from one President to another without violence or on-going revolution. Consequently we look at the indirect nature of the electoral college as a historical anachronism.

The United States is also an increasingly national political system than a federal one. The ongoing expansion of centralized power in Washington DC has meant that the policy prerogatives of the states is getting smaller and smaller with each Presidential term. The Bush Administration and Republican Congress for instance expanded central power into the states territory with the No Child Left Behind act. No state refused the money, weakening the federal character and state independence further.

So is the Electoral College unfair?

Not really. The national voice is provided for in its unadulterated form in the House. The federal voice is pure in form in the Senate. The election of the President and Vice President is intended to be a mix of the two with the added safety valve of indirect election. It has worked well for the US so far and the winner takes all aspect of the federal system in the electoral college has given added legitimacy to Presidents who have barely won the national popular vote. The Electoral College as an electoral system sits neatly within the design and goals of the Washington system of politics and constitutional structure.