Friday, October 29, 2004
Electoral reform could provide more voices
The state of Kansas has given all electoral votes since the 1964 presidential election to Republicans. Scott Poor wants to do something about that. He is not alone in this aspiration, but his role in the way we elect the President might come as a shock to those that hold partisan viewpoints. Poor is the Executive Director and General Counsel for the Kansas Republican Party. He favors apportioning Kansas ' six electoral votes according to the state's popular vote, moving away from the current winner-take-all system.
"We haven't had a presidential candidate campaign in Kansas since 1988," said Poor. "In fact, they keep canceling our Presidential primary."
Changing the way Kansas allocates electoral votes is just one example of reforms to the Electoral College considered since the 2000 Election. In the intervening years, many voters have realized that they do not directly elect the President and Vice President. Yet a fundamental understanding of the Electoral College still eludes many Kansans. Few grasp that when they cast their vote on November 2, they are actually designating a slate of partisan electors who will cast individual votes for President and Vice President in December.
The electoral process works quite simply in Kansas. The Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, and Reform Party each vote on a slate of electors at their state caucus or convention. After filing the list of electors with the Kansas Secretary of State, the parties wait for Election Day. According to Federal law, the party with a plurality convenes their slate of electors on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December to cast the vote for President and Vice President individually. This year, Kansas electors will meet in Topeka on December 13.
Currently, Kansas is a winner-take-all state. The candidates that win the popular statewide election receive all six electoral votes. Only Maine and Nebraska alter this winner-take-all rule. Under their system, the winner of the plurality in the state gets two electoral votes. Any candidate gets one additional electoral vote for each Congressional District in which they receive a plurality. If recent history and current polling hold true in Kansas, the six electors chosen by the Republican Party at their April caucus should cast six electoral votes for President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. But when the electors gather in Topeka, there are no guarantees that they will follow the mandate of the popular vote.
There are safeguards available to encourage these electors to vote the will of their constituency. States have passed laws that range from requiring an oath of electors to fines and criminal prosecution for electors who fail to vote according to the popular vote. Kansas is among the states most lax in restricting electors. According to Kansas statute, the state does not pledge electors to the winning ticket, nor does it require that ballots list the names of electors. Instead, voters rely on the partisan appointments from the state political parties for accurate representation of the popular will of the people. It is important to note that, according to the Office of the Federal Register, the Supreme Court has not ruled on whether pledges and penalties for failure to vote as pledged are enforceable under the Constitution. Since 1948, the resulting gray area has allowed eight electors across the nation, including one of particular interest to Kansans in 1976, to stray from their prescribed vote without consequence.
In 1976, Washington state elector Mike Padden, pledged to President Ford, instead cast a vote for Ronald Reagan. He did follow protocol in voting for Vice President. In doing so, Padden elevated Ford's running mate, Kansas' own Senator Robert J. Dole, to the unique position of being the only Vice Presidential candidate in the history of the United States to receive more electoral votes than his Presidential running mate. While there was no lasting impact from Padden's actions, or those of the other eight electoral defectors, the availability of this unique form of civil disobedience has stoked the debate over the Electoral College.
 |
Paul Schumaker, Professor of Political Science, said that failure to pledge electors is a real danger. "Incentives for "buying of electors" in a close race are dangerous," said Schumaker, "and if a rogue elector was responsible for overturning popular preferences, hell will break out."
After the tumult of the 2000 election, Schumaker led a group of 37 political scientists in a study of the Electoral College and the alternatives. Schumaker said that he would like to see the United States adopt an instant runoff system. In an instant runoff election, instead of just casting one vote for one candidate, voters rank the candidates first, second, third, etc. If no candidate receives a majority of first votes, the candidate with the least first votes is eliminated. The second choice votes from these ballots transfer to the other candidates. They recount the ballots and eliminate candidates in this manner until a winner emerges with a majority of the vote. "This will enhance citizen interest and participation and lead to less acrimonious campaigns," said Schumaker.
Not all political operators want to see the system change. Chris Miller, Chairman of the Douglas County Republican Central Committee, has no problem with the system as it is now. He said that any change would seem to be working around the process. The Kansas Democratic Party, with the most to gain from popular apportionment, also does not endorse a change to the system. "I don't have an official opinion about it," said Mark Simpson, Kansas Democratic Party Executive Director, when reached for comment on the apportionment process.
The 2000 election opened the eyes of many Americans to their misconceptions of our electoral procedure. Scott Poor's interest in reviving the rigor of that process drives him to break with other partisan politicians. "The national party would fight against it," said Poor.
According to Poor, the Kansas legislature will begin discussing possible alterations to the state's electoral process after Election Day.
