MARCH 20 20 FORBES.COM
17
How to Save U.S. Politics
FACT & COMMENT
By Steve Forbes, Editor-in-Chief“With all thy getting, get understanding”
Critics of the much-maligned Electoral Col-
lege overlook one of its fundamental virtues:
tamping down dangerously divisive politics.
Advocates of replacing this “18th-century
anachronism” with a straight popular vote im-
plicitly assume the current two-party system
would remain intact and that the candidate
with the most individual votes—instead of
electoral votes—would win the White House.
That’s the way things work for every other
elected office in the U.S.; why wouldn’t it be so
for the most important one of all?
But the basic two-party arrangement we
take for granted exists only because of the Electoral Col-
lege. To win the presidency, a candidate has to appeal to
people across the country. A nationwide coalition is essen-
tial to gaining a majority in the Electoral College. A narrow
sectional or special-interest base simply won’t cut it. That’s
why our parties are collections of many diverse interests and
backgrounds, reflecting the character of this continental na-
tion whose citizens, or forebears, have come from all corners
of the world and reflect a wide array of cultures and beliefs.
It’s why supporters of the Democratic and Republican par-
ties are so often uneasy with one another. GOP voters in the
Northeast, for instance, who tend to emphasize economic is-
sues such as low taxes, are put off by social conservatives.
The system puts a premium on moderation. Yes, candidates
can advocate bold programs, but they have to do so in ways that
don’t alienate more tepid members of their party, not to men-
tion independent voters. A radical idea usually goes through
what might be called a marinating process, during which time
people become accustomed to the notion, and even then it has
often become a watered-down version of the original.
The Electoral College’s systemic bias for softening the
rough, potentially dangerous edges of national politics has en-
abled us for over two centuries to debate and resolve even bit-
terly contentious issues without tearing apart the country and
leaving wounds that can fester for generations. The exception,
of course, was the issue of slavery. Otherwise, the tendency to
move toward moderation and inclusion has held.
Look at the Democrats. The party has indeed lunged to the
left, but behold what’s happened to its presidential wannabes
who most faithfully parroted the extreme views of far-left ac-
tivists on such matters as rigid anti-individual identity politics
or an immediate government takeover of health care: They’ve
floundered or have tried to soften the sharpness of their views.
Elizabeth Warren’s once expanding bubble deflated once shehad to explain how she was going to pay for all
the “free stuff ” she was promising. Party mem-
bers were also put off by her harsh negativity.
If one of the parties does veer far from the
existing center, it will suffer a shattering de-
feat, as the Democrats did in 1972 when they
nominated a far-left candidate who ended
up carrying only one state and the District
of Columbia.
Along the same lines, because candidates
have to wage nationwide campaigns to win,
the Electoral College forces these contenders
to become familiar with local and regional
issues they might otherwise overlook, most particularly in
battleground states. The current arrangement does more to
give a voice to minorities, people whose support could be
crucial in key states.
Today’s parties are state and local organizations. Each runs
its own show its own way. Sure, there are national committees,
but they are essentially fundraising entities for congressional
and gubernatorial candidates—and their party’s presidential
candidate. Every four years local parties come together to for-
mally nominate a presidential candidate, who then is auto-
matically put on the ballot in every state in the union (and the
District of Columbia). In contrast, independent candidates for
our ultimate office have to go through an expensive, laborious
process to get on all the ballots. Few manage to do so. Each
state has its own rules—some easy, others extremely difficult.
A direct popular vote for president would shatter this po-
litical ecosystem that’s uniquely suited to America.
Individuals and special-interest organizations would con-
tinuously create their own parties. For example, would Mike
Bloomberg—who at various times during his political career
has been a Democrat, a Republican and an independent—even
bother to try to fetch the Democratic nomination for president?
Of course not. With his resources, he would do it on his own.
Unlike the two-party system the Electoral College fosters
today, there would be numerous candidates competing in
a national election. More basic and ominous is that in con-
trast to the moderating bias of the Electoral College, a direct
popular-vote system would put a premium on inflaming pas-
sions to gin up support for candidates in a crowded field.
Of course, if no aspirant reached a certain threshold—and
what level should that be: 40%? 50%?—there would have to
be a runoff. Since there would be so many candidates vying to
occupy 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, one could easily envision
elections in which the runoff would be between two extremist