Massachusetts would do well to listen to the advice of Senator Kennedy.

No, not that Kennedy. I am referring to John F. Kennedy, who was a Senator before he was President. Speaking from the Senate floor, Kennedy once referred to the checks and balances in the Constitution as a “solar system” of governmental power. This system of checks and balances, he noted, works as a whole, taken together. If one of the Constitution’s protective devices is eliminated, every other element of the solar system is impacted.

Consider an example: If the gravitational pull of the sun is modified, everything else changes, too. The orbit of each planet would shift, impacting that planet’s atmosphere. Earth could become uninhabitable. Senator Kennedy understood that the same dynamic is present in the Constitution. The balance of power among governmental branches is delicate, and even a minor change could cause everything to shift. The American experiment, successful for two centuries, could quite easily implode.

Readers might be surprised to hear what constitutional institution, in particular, Kennedy was defending in his remarks. His statements were made in defense of the much-maligned and misunderstood Electoral College. Kennedy stated:

“[I]t is not only the unit vote for the Presidency we are talking about, but a whole solar system of governmental power. If it is proposed to change the balance of power of one of the elements of the solar system, it is necessary to consider all the others.”

Massachusetts is on the brink of casting his advice to the wind. Last week, the state House approved an anti-Electoral College bill. The bill is being considered by the state Senate this week. If enacted, the bill commits Massachusetts to an interstate compact. States participating in the compact agree to award all their presidential electors to the winner of the national popular vote. The compact goes into effect when states holding 270 electoral votes (a majority of electors) have agreed to the plan. The compact has already been approved by Hawaii (4 electoral votes), Illinois (21 electoral votes), Maryland (10 electoral votes), and New Jersey (15 electoral votes). Adding Massachusetts to the pact raises the number of potentially committed electors to 62.

One supporter of the bill, Massachusetts representative Garrett Bradley, House Chairman of the Joint Committee on Election Laws, argues that the “bill is a constitutional way of making sure the person with the most votes wins.”

Well, sort of. But Bradley neglects to mention one small fact. The legislation does not contain a run-off provision. Such a provision can’t be included because states agreeing to the pact have no mechanism for enforcing a run-off in states that do not pass the legislation. Thus, the presidential candidate with “the most votes” wins even if he does so with a very small plurality. That point can’t be emphasized too strongly: Under this plan, a candidate could win the presidency even if he obtains no more than 20 or 30 percent of the popular vote. Without the Electoral College, third party candidates will gain many more votes than they do today. So such an outcome is much more likely than it might seem at first glance.

Talk about a change in the solar system! Today’s system requires candidates to build national coalitions. Support that is isolated to one region or special interest group is useless because candidates need a majority of states’ votes to win. But in this new world, catering to one special interest group might be sufficient to gain the small plurality needed for victory. Indeed, candidates could energize these voting blocks by promising them anything and everything, without regard to other Americans’ legitimate needs. If a candidate is elected because he turned out 20 percent of voters with his promises to pro-gun activists, will the other 80 percent of voters feel that such a president is their president also? What if the candidate is elected on pro-life promises? Pro-choice promises? Promises to oil interests, mining interests, or environmental interests?

A candidate who has been rejected by 70 to 80 percent of the voting public is not the candidate that “most Americans” support.

The Electoral College will never guarantee the election of a President who is the first choice of a majority of voters. Such a guarantee is impossible in a country as diverse as America. But the Electoral College does the next best thing: It finds a candidate who is an acceptable compromise candidate for a majority of Americans, as represented by their states.

This important benefit of the American solar system should not be casually thrown away.

Comments (5)

Comment	smaller | bigger
Name
Write the displayed characters
Subscribe via email (Registered users only) I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.
	Add Comment