As I take a look back at the 2016 election, two issues should be examined to assure future free and fair elections.
First, we should have a constructive and bipartisan discussion about the benefits of the Electoral College. We are in a time of instant information and communication. When our forefathers drafted the Constitution, it was a time of very limited communication. They determined each state should appoint electors equal to the number of its Senators and Representatives to elect the president. Later Washington D.C. was given three electoral votes. A total of 538 electoral votes are now available. At least 270 are needed to win.
This formula weighs votes in less populous states more than those in higher population states. Our representative democracy should give equal weight to a vote cast regardless of the state in which an individual resides.
U.S. Rep. Steven Cohen (D-TN) argues for the “direct” election of our president. “The Electoral College is an antiquated system that was established to prevent citizens from directly electing our nation’s president.”
In the commentary I submitted immediately after the 2016 election I wrote, “The people have spoken.” The truth is the people cast nearly three million more votes for the loser. I should have written that the people in the individual states have decided how their electors should cast their ballots. This is the fifth time in history that the winner of a presidential election did not win the popular vote.
My concern is the lack of equality in the weight of the individual vote cast. California has 55 electoral votes, or one vote per 711,724 people. Wyoming has three electoral votes, or one vote per 195,369 people. Texas has 38 electoral votes, or one vote per 548,959 people. Vermont has three electoral votes, or one vote per 208,680 people. These examples are among the most and least populous states. A vote in Vermont or Wyoming has a value of roughly three times a vote in Texas or California. Also, votes cast in American territories have no weight in the Electoral College. They have no voice.
It will take a constitutional amendment to give the vote directly to the people. This will be a hard road to hoe. There needs to be two-thirds approval in both houses and then, there needs to be ratification by 38 of 50 states.
I believe a direct election would increase participation especially in those states where there is a clear majority for either party. Voters will have reason to believe their vote may make a difference. Candidates may have to appeal to a broader spectrum of voters.
Free and “fair” elections are the core of our democratic process. With the abolishment of the Electoral College, the fairness of our elections would potentially be improved.
The second issue resulting out of the recent election is the probable interference by a foreign power; namely Russia. A bipartisan group of Senators has called for a probe into the role of Russia in the 2016 election. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said, “This simply cannot be a partisan issue.” He expressed his “highest confidence in the intelligence community and especially the Central Intelligence Agency.”
Manipulation of the election or the attempt to undermine the integrity of the election by a foreign power is dangerous and a threat to our system. At the very least it diminishes confidence in the result.
Mr. Trump maintained, “I don’t believe it,” referring to reports of Russia being responsible for the hacking. He has called the reports “ridiculous.” He has also indicated that he doesn’t believe all the intel he has received in his intelligence briefings.
The Senate investigation may be able to determine the Russian motive for the hacking and the dissemination of this information in the weeks leading up to the election. Were they only trying to affect trust in the election process or were they actively trying to defeat Hillary Clinton? This is serious and needs to be addressed. Hacking and cyber espionage are and will continue to be a threat to American security.
It should be America first, way before any party affiliation, when it comes to the integrity of this essential democratic process.