The method by which United States voters choose their president came under fire Wednesday as officials recount votes in Florida amid the possibility that Democratic candidate Al Gore could win the popular vote but lose the electoral vote.
Constitutional expert and Northwestern Law Prof. Robert Bennett said the possible anomaly of Gore earning more votes than Republican candidate George W. Bush but losing the election proves the electoral vote system should be closely examined.
“It’s a disaster waiting to happen and may be happening before our eyes,” Bennett said.
He pointed out that amending the electoral voting system is not without precedent.
Prior to 1800, the top two electoral vote-getters were named president and vice president. After Thomas Jefferson and John Adams tied in 1800, however, the electoral votes for the two offices were separated, Bennett said.
And though many people have criticized the electoral voting system since then, serious movements to reform the system “never get a head of steam,” he said.
Tom Sherman, president of NU’s chapter of College Republicans, said the electoral voting system is counterintuitive and that if current projections pan out, Gore should be president.
“I don’t like the fact that the guy who got the most votes isn’t going to be president,” said Sherman, a Weinberg sophomore. “I would hope to see that the Electoral College is eliminated as soon as possible.”
However, NU political science Prof. Kenneth Janda is not so quick to dismiss the electoral voting system.
The system, he said, has several advantages, such as concentrating the problem of a too-close-to-call election to one state — in this case, Florida.
“We’ve compartmentalized the problem,” he said. “If the election counted on the popular vote, then probably we’d be recounting votes in every damn state in the union.”
A national effort for recounting votes could take months, he said, because recounting is an inexact science subject to political influence.
In Palm Beach, Fla., some voters say they mistakenly cast ballots for Reform Party candidate Pat Buchanan when they meant to vote for Gore. Because disputes over ballots typically end in court, the judge might decide which votes to count, Janda said.
“Any kind of recounting decision is a political decision; it’s a matter of whose votes you count,” he said. “Determining who the real winner is like looking for the Holy Grail — it doesn’t exist. You might as well just say, ‘Let’s flip a coin.'”
Eliminating the electoral voting system would not only create the risk of a nationwide recount but also would change the way candidates campaign for office.
People would no longer go to rural areas to campaign, but would instead run a media campaign in the top 100 markets, as Ross Perot did in 1992, Janda said.
“If you value candidates going to Carbondale (Ill.) to campaign, you admit there’s some merit to the electoral vote system,” he said.
Though less controversial than the electoral vote system, the Electoral College could still be an issue in this election, Bennett said.
Even if Gore loses Florida, a case could be made that a Bush-Cheney ticket is unconstitutional — the constitution prevents members of the Electoral College from voting for a president and vice president from the same state, Bennett said.
Cheney, a Texas resident, “changed his voter registration back to Wyoming, but that doesn’t mean somebody can’t bring it up,” Bennett said.
As the popular votes get sorted out in the Sunshine State, the debate over how voters choose the president is sure to continue, the experts agree.
“Elections are a lot like making sausage — it’s not a neat and tidy operation,” Janda said.
