Tara Ross

Does the Electoral College benefit Hawaii during presidential elections? Many of its opponents argue that it does not, describing Hawaii as a “mere spectator” in presidential elections. Indeed, conventional wisdom holds that “only swing states matter” to presidential candidates. These sound bites probably sound indisputable. But they instead represent a fundamental misunderstanding of America’s unique presidential election process.

The misconception has unfortunately led the Hawaii legislature to pass an anti-Electoral College bill. The legislation is the brain child of the California-based National Popular Vote campaign. NPV hopes to convince states to enter into an interstate compact. Participating states would agree to allocate their entire slate of presidential electors to the winner of the national popular vote. The compact would go into effect when states holding 270 electoral votes (enough to win the presidency) have agreed to its terms. Governor Linda Lingle vetoed similar legislation last year. She should do so again this year, and the legislature should sustain her veto.

Voters have many misperceptions about the Electoral College. Electoral College opponents throw around scary statistics that allegedly support their notion that “only swing states matter.” But these numbers are taken out of context. They often focus too exclusively on the dynamics of a particular snapshot in time. Once states’ full histories of voting are studied, it becomes apparent that the identity of “swing” and “safe” states changes all the time. Remember that California voted Republican as recently as 1988. Texas used to be safely Democrat.

For a variety of reasons, the past few elections have been unusually close. The election dynamic is similar to that which existed in the late 1800s. In the aftermath of Reconstruction, American presidential elections were intensely regional. Strong emotions and grievances separated North and South. Reuniting the country after the Civil War was no easy task. But the Electoral College encouraged both political parties to reach across the seemingly stark northern/southern divide. The regional divisions caused by the Civil War and Reconstruction were healed, at least in part, because the Electoral College forced both parties to understand and appeal to those outside of their base constituencies.

Americans today face a comparable situation. The divisions in the electoral map may seem permanent, but they are not. Indeed, history reveals that the identity of “safe” and “swing” states is a constantly evolving process. The Electoral College keeps political parties on their toes, always requiring them to take into account the needs of a wide variety of voters. Just when they take one type of voter for granted, that state drops out of the “safe” category and into the “swing” category.

The Electoral College also provides many other benefits that are often forgotten. First, the Electoral College, combined with the winner-take-all method of electoral vote allocation, encourages moderation and compromise. As a matter of history, campaigns fail if they focus too exclusively on one region or one special interest group. Campaigns excel when they create large coalitions of voters comprised of people from a wide variety of backgrounds. Close elections simply mean that neither party did a particularly good job of creating the national coalition needed for success.

Second, the Electoral College upholds the two-party system. The two-party system has its frustrating moments, but it also promotes stability. Without it, American presidential elections would be fought among 5, 6, even 10 candidates. Such fractured voting would not only further divide Americans, but it would also result in closer popular vote totals, which in turn would lead to increased recounts and election contests. Worse, with more candidates in play, extremist groups would need fewer votes to sway an election. The NPV legislation does not contain a run-off provision. Thus, a President could be elected even he wins with a bare plurality of 15 or 20 percent of voters. Such a President does not have the support of “most Americans.”

Finally, the Electoral College promotes certain election outcomes. The system makes it hard to steal votes where it will matter. When voting problems do occur, these problems are isolated to one or a handful of states. In the event of disputes, the country is given an easily identifiable and limited set of questions to resolve before moving on to declare one candidate the victor.

The Electoral College is often trashed as “unfair” and “undemocratic,” but in reality, it is just misunderstood. Hawaiian legislators need to take into account the important benefits of this essential constitutional institution before they casually—and foolishly—vote to deprive Hawaiians of its benefits.

The Electoral College Helps Hawaii

Hawaii Reporter