After The People Vote: A Guide To The Electoral College, edited by John C. Fortier
As someone who has written on the matter of the electoral college [1] and who in general has a strong interest in constitutional law [2], I thought this book would be a good one if a somewhat basic one and I was pleased with the discussion that the authors had and the materials they brought in on the Electoral College. I tend to be a supporter of the Electoral College myself for reasons of federalism, and this book did a good job at discussing some of the elements of the history of the institution and even provided an example of someone who wants to eliminate the electoral college while framing that hostile testimony with two essays in favor of it that provide counterpoints to the arguments that the anti-electoral college essay seeks to make, not least the straw man arguments that are dealt with. Overall this short book is a fine example of rhetoric that deserves to have an honored place on the bookshelves of those whose interested in political science and constitutional law would warrant.
This short book is about 100 pages and is divided into three parts and some appendices. After acknowledgments, a preface, and a timeline for the elections of 2004 and 2008, the book begins with a discussion of how the electoral college works, with essays on how electors are appointed, for whom they vote, how the votes are counted, what is to be done if there is no majority, and other related issues. After that there are essays on the history of disputed elections, the first one covering the three disputed elections of the 19th century (1800, 1824, and 1876), and the second one discussing the election of 2000. After that the third part of the book consists three essays, the first and the third in favor of the electoral college and the second one against, which is mainly made up of straw man arguments that the author proceeds to demolish unconvincingly, leaving the general impression one that the authors are in favor of the Electoral College even with its quirks. The book then ends with about 30 pages of appendices, including constitutional provisions for selecting presidents, statutory provisions for this task, the nomination and binding of presidential electors, 1825 precedents, party rules, allocation of electoral votes in 2004 and 2008, faithless electors, and the electoral college and popular vote outcomes of all American elections since the Constitution, after which there are some notes and comments about the authors.
In many ways, this book is a case study in how to handle current events and constitutional law in a thoughtful matter. The book manages to combine different perspectives, which clues the reader into the fact that there is an argument, even if the editor (and publisher) have clear sympathies towards one side rather than the other. How to deal with such matters in a thoughtful manner is certainly one of the ways this book succeeds wonderfully. The book also works well in weaving topical matters of controversy (like the history of elections and specifically the election of 2000) into a discussion of more timeless constitutional matters. The book also discusses the way that the Electoral college and the question of faithless electors is not one that is generally heated, although the authors do not recognize that what happened in 2000 also could easily happen in the future, assuming it to be a one off event rather than a harbinger of more troublesome partisan divides similar to the period of the 19th century when such events were more common. Still, it would not be right to blame a book for failing to predict the future and this book is certainly a worthwhile and frequently entertaining read.
[1] See, for example:
The Enduring Usefulness Of The Electoral College: A Constitutional Essay
[2] See, for example:
Objective Reasonableness In Police Activity: A Constitutional Essay
Edge Induced Cohesion 