The People's President: The Electoral College in American History and the Direct Vote Alternative, Revised Edition

When I read this book in July of 1968 I became convinced that the popular vote should determine the election. I no longer believe this. If it did, the federal system which we live under would be seriously changed. Small states would lose importance, and campaigners would spend even more of their time in the areas where there are lots of people. It would constitute a drastic change in the system which has served us well for most of our history. If there should be a change, we should eliminate the possibility of "faithless electors" and in case of no majority we should let the House pick the President, instead of giving the House only one vote as is presently the case.

Neal Peirce's discussion of the workings of the Electoral College was one of the most important scholarly examinations ever undertaken. There is a wealth of detail in the book, and it is well written and organized.Some of Peirce's assumptions should be reconsidered. He suggests that the Republicans miscounted the popular vote in the southern states in the contested 1876 election, when in fact few historians would accept that conclusion. (Can you imagine Eric Foner saying that?)Peirce's conclusion that removing the Electoral College would solve the problems with electing the President presupposes that there are no contested elections. A close election like the Kennedy-Nixon race would hinge on minor counting of election officials (a swing of one vote per precinct in 1960 would have handed the vote to Nixon, even accepting the contested nature of the returns).The direct election of the President may be a preferable system, but there has not been a proposal for reform which would remove all the possibilities for a contested election.