Perhaps the most significant paradox in the founding of our constitutional democracy is the electoral college.  The rationale for this Rube Goldberg inspired system of choosing the nation’s chief executive violates a bedrock principle etched in the founding documents.  An extension of the phrase “all men are created equal” in the Declaration of Independence is a belief in one person/one vote, reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of Baker v. Carr (1962).  Second, a paradox within a paradox, the original allocation of electoral votes allowed states to count slaves in their population totals (albeit as only 3/5 of a free white resident) but denied them the right to vote.  This convoluted algorithm ensured Virginia would have 12 of the original total of 91 electoral votes which partially explains the dominance of candidates from the Old Dominion in eight of the first nine presidential elections. (1788-1816).  For those who deny slavery had and continues to have a lasting impact on the American political and social landscape need look no farther than its role as a justification for the electoral college.

Most opponents of the electoral college point to the overweight of an elector in rural states.  Why, they ask, should Wyoming with 560,000 residents have three electoral votes (1:186,667 residents) when California has 55 for a population of 39.1 million (1:710,909).  I, however, argue that is the least unfair aspect of the system.  Regardless of where you live, a significant plurality of voters in every presidential election are denied having ANY voice in the presidential election.  Take the 2016 election as an example. I was one of the 65,853,625 voters who gave Hillary Clinton a 2.1 percent margin of victory over Donald Trump in the popular vote.  But my vote did not count because I live in Florida which gave its 29 electoral votes to Donald Trump.  This perspective is not based on party or ideology.  A 2016 Trump voter in California should rightfully feel the same way.

I present this brief history of the electoral college in light of the renewed interest in third party candidates as we approach the next presidential election.  Absent the electoral college, I would be all in favor of third party candidates.  If an alternative to the two major parties could build a broad enough coalition to make them competitive, so be it.  But that is not the case.  Under the electoral college system a few thousand voters in one or more key states can override the will of the majority.  There is no better proof than the state of Florida in 2000 where Republican George W. Bush outpolled Democrat Al Gore by 527 votes. (Can you say “hanging chad?”)  Meanwhile, Green Party candidate Ralph Nader tallied 97,488 Sunshine State votes.  If Nader supporters had split by 51-49 percent in favor of Gore, he would have beat Bush by more than a 1,000 ballots and captured the state’s 25 electoral votes, resulting in a 281-263 Gore victory in the electoral college.  For the record, Gore received a plurality of the popular vote, 48.38 percent to Bush’s 47.86 percent.

There is one other solution to the potential chaos created by third party candidates, especially if he or she should win just one state’s electoral votes.  Suppose, for example, Joe Manchin runs as the No Labels standard bearer.  It is not inconceivable he could win a three-way race in West Virginia capturing the states five electoral votes.  And the two major party candidates split the remainder in half 265-265.  Without any candidate receiving the required 270 electoral votes to be declared the winner, the contest would be sent to the House of Representatives where each state delegation has one vote.  If you think the electoral college violates the principle of one person/one vote, this situation would give Wyoming’s 560,000 residents the SAME weight as California’s 39.1 million citizens.  The possibility of the above scenario could be limited by mandating ranked-choice voting for presidential elections.  West Virginia might still go for Manchin, but the outcome would not be skewed by his third place finish in other closely contested states.

I know, MAGA world will argue ranked-choice voting is a Democratic Party scheme to steal elections.  They will point to Sarah Palin’s loss in her bid for a House seat from Alaska.  But in the September 2022 special election and again in the November 2022 general election, her opponent Mary Peltola won a plurality of the first round votes.  Peltola then reached the 50 percent threshold when third place candidate Nick Begich’s total was allocated based on his supporters’ second choice.

Ironically, the one instance where ranked-choice voting would have made a difference in the presidential election is 1992 when neither Bill Clinton or George H. W. Bush received 50 percent of the votes in 46 of the 50 states.  It does not take a rocket science to predict an overwhelming majority of independent Ross Perot’s 18.9 percent of the national vote would have gone to Bush if ranked-choice voting was in place.

Bottom line?  If you do not want third-party candidates who are more likely to cause chaos than real changes in national governance, first you need to address quirks in the current system by which America chooses its commander-in-chief.  And especially, at a time when American democracy and the rule of law are teetering on a precipitous ledge, third party advocates need to be careful what they wish for.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP