The Electoral College, by Martha S. Hewson

There are at least a few insights that one can gain from a book that is not quite as good as it thinks it is.  For one, adopting a principle of synoptical reading can give one insights that one would not normally have on a book by seeing how multiple authors deal with the same concerns.  The book also has Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr as a senior consulting editor, given a higher place of honor than the book’s writer and clearly seeking to cash in on his prestige as a writer and a thinker.  I must admit that I find that to be a less than satisfactory element of this book, given that Schlesinger is overrated as a thinker and as a historian and that is on display here.  Far more interesting than what this book says about the Electoral College in its brief space is what it does not say about the author’s respect and regard for constitutional norms and an ominous sense that while the electoral college is in place for now that the author would be happy to see the system replaced with a direct nationwide vote where vote harvesting and other sorts of fraud would be far more troublesome than they now are.

This book is a short one at a bit more than 50 pages and it is divided into a few sections.  After a discussion of “crises of government” that occur when the popular vote winner loses the electoral college as in 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, or 2016 from Schlesinger, the author begins with a discussion of Bush vs. Gore in 2000 (1).  After that there is a discussion of the creation of the electoral college (2) as well as the course of early elections (3).  After that the author discusses various political maneuvers and scandals (4) as well as the elections of 1876 and 1888, where Republicans won over Democrats despite losing the popular vote (largely because of voter suppression in the south and the usual Democratic shenanigans about the vote in Northern cities) (5).  After that the author discusses the electoral college today (6) as well as the question of whether the electoral college should change, which the author appears to want (7).  The book then closes with a discussion of electoral college votes state by state, a glossary, suggestions for further reading, and an index.

In general, it can be said of this book that the author is at best tepid about the Electoral College and does not like the way that it can sometimes crown winners who do not win the popular vote even if the two are usually in sync.  One of the more ominous notes in the book is sounded when the author states that for now at least the Electoral College is something that exists and that governs how elections are won, but the author makes no promise to endorse this in the future.  It is, at least to me, rather troubling if someone discusses an aspect of our political system that is part of the constitution (and amendments as well) and does not endorse what the constitution says.  There are certainly a great many people who tend to want to think of an evolving constitution and think of the written constitution as being out of date because it was so old and imply that the electoral college was only meant to support slaveowners and that this invalidates any present concerns about federalism or the fact that cultural differences remain across state lines.  Even if the results of the electoral college and popular vote do not always coincide, I would prefer any solution that recognized the federal aspects of the American nation, which this book does not really get behind.