Why the Electoral College Is Bad for America

This book is the spiritual successor to the "Electoral College Primer" series that was discontinued in 2002 due to the death of its primary authors. For opponents of the Electoral College it's a good thing the mantle has been passed, because this book represents a far more damning case for the abolishment of the Electoral College than those books did. A large portion of the material is lifted verbatim from those books, but in addition to exhibiting the voting power distortions created by the Electoral College, this book also tackles the practical arguments put forth in defense of the Electoral College head on. Edwards effectively dismantles the idea that it is a bastion of federalism, and also the specious "vote fraud deterrent" argument often trotted out. Perhaps the single most impressive argument in the book is a quote cited from James Madison that "The President is to represent the people, not the States". Edwards supports his refutations to EC-defender favorite slogans such as "national coalitions" not with counter-taglines but instead with cold hard numbers that prove that the Electoral College doesn't actually engender the development of any of those things. Where Edwards falls flat on his face, however, is in his contention that the Electoral College encourages third parties to run. This is easily refuted in both theory and practice. Extremely specific circumstances would have to come about for a third party candidate to have even a prayer of winning even one Electoral vote, much less accrue enough to throw the election into the House of Representatives. and even if such a circumstance should arise, the third party candidate would have absolutely zero chance of winning such a contingency election. Even allowing for the possibility that a candidate would wish to run exclusively to assume the "spoiler" role, such a candidate would be unlikely to attract a significant portion of the electorate. Perhaps the most significant criticism of this book I can offer is that however impressive the case against the Electoral College it presents, and it is impressive, it never actually delivers what its title promises. Edwards, while demolishing most of the arguments of defense for the Electoral College, never attempts to demonstrate Why the Electoral College is Bad for America. I mean that in the most literal sense. Whatever one thinks of the institution, it has produced a series of chief executives that have transformed our country into the most powerful in the history of the modern world. There's at least something to be said about that, is there not? Like its predecessor, the Electoral College Primer series, the most cloying thing about the book is its tendency to overstate "crises" resulting from the Electoral College, of which none of the elections were really crises, but only were close to being. Of course we are all free to speculate AFTER the election how many shifted votes would have resulted in deadlock, but time and time again,

Texas A & M University political science professor George Edwards, III, brings an interesting and thought provoking study with "Why the Electoral College is Bad for America" (2004 paperback). His 198 pages provide significant research (with 21 pages of endnotes and a plethora of helpful graphs, accommodating statistical tables, and informative charts). His resource data alone is worth the cost of the book! Starting from the premise- the Electoral College has a wide range of advantages and disadvantages for American policy- Edwards precedes to focus on the problems with the 18th century presidential election system. He notes, "the electoral college poses a real potential for deadlock" (page 61). And, of course, the political party in power always appreciates the electoral system while the party out of presidential power wants to altogether eliminate the program. Encouragement of a third party system (page 140) or direct election by the national populace- or as Bob Dole calls it "commonsense federalism"- (page 121) could provide a better election system. Will the U.S. ever abandon the Electoral College?- probably not. Although Edwards' seven chapters are informative, his writing style is a bit tedious (his chapters average 30 pages in length!). The book is not necessarily quickly read. If there is disappointment in this book it is that Edwards allows his Democrat politics to entangle his political theory. He also, disappointingly, too often references contemporary news media (almost a third of his sources from chapter 6 alone are news papers and political periodicals!). Edwards is a good read. His book explains the role and sometimes abuse of the Electoral College. It is recommendable to all political science readers, students of American history, research collectors, and those interested in the Electoral College.

Edwards provides a lucid, devastating critique of the Electoral College and its negative impact on American politics and government. After reading this book it will be hard for people to keep a straight face when defenders of this 18th century institution make such outmoded arguments as "candidates will spend time only in population centers" (as if they don't focus all their energies right now on just a handful of states and as if candidates in all races for governor don't try to win votes wherever they are in a state). My one disappointment is his recommendation that we enshire the principle of "plurality rule" when directly electing the president. That would mean we could have presidents elected with less than 30% of the vote and would maintain the "spoiler" dynamic for any independent and third party candidate trying to offer new ideas to voters. Far better would be to establish a 50%-plus-one majority requirement as proposed by Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. and groups like FairVote-The Center for Voting and Democracy -- or at the very least leave it to Congress to decide by statute. But Edwards' book should help re-start a national conversation about changing the Electoral College -- which as recently in 1969 came close to being abolished after the House voted by a 4-to-1 margin to go to direct election.