Balkinization   |
Balkinization
Balkinization Symposiums: A Continuing List                                                                E-mail: Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu David Luban david.luban at gmail.com Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu Compendium of posts on Hobby Lobby and related cases The Anti-Torture Memos: Balkinization Posts on Torture, Interrogation, Detention, War Powers, and OLC The Anti-Torture Memos (arranged by topic) Recent Posts Can Anything Short Of Outright Repeal Cure The Impecilities Of The Electoral College?
|
Monday, October 12, 2020
Can Anything Short Of Outright Repeal Cure The Impecilities Of The Electoral College?
Sandy Levinson
For the Balkinization Symposium on Alexander Keyssar, Why Do We Still Have the Electoral College? (Harvard University Press, 2020), and Jesse Wegman, Let the People Pick the President: The Case for Abolishing the Electoral College (St. Martin's Press, 2020). All three of the books
have as one of their dominant motifs the sheer difficulty, if not practical
impossibility, of amending the Constitution.
Wegman and Foley, in particular, structure their affirmative proposals around
this reality. If constitutional change
is impossible, then the next best thing is to support ameliorative proposals
that would not require climbing Mount Everest.
It is illuminating, though, that Wegman’s strongly-argued proposal is
eviscerated by Foley, even as Foley’s retains the possibility both of electoral
college winners who in fact come in second in the overall popular vote, as well
as retaining the possibility of the “contingent election.” So let’s begin with
Wegman, who strongly endorses the so-called “national popular vote interstate
compact.” The idea is (perhaps
deceptively) simple: States with a total
of 270 electoral votes simply agree, in a “compact” with one another, to
instruct those chosen to be electors to vote for whoever comes in first in the
national popular vote. The Constitution
clearly assigns to state legislatures the nearly plenary power to “appoint”
electors; many state legislatures at the outset of the United States simply
appointed the electors themselves without the bother of requiring an election
at all, though this hasn’t been done since Colorado did in it 1876. The Supreme Court’s July decision presumably
removes any doubt about the constitutionality of such “instructed”
electors. The adoption of the proposal
would, as Wegman ably argues, eliminate the possibility that the “winner” might
in fact collect fewer votes than the “loser.”
So what’s the problem? Why, in
particular, does Foley object so strongly (as does Rakove)? The answer, for both, is
quite lawyerly. One might well believe
that such a “compact” could become truly effective only with congressional
assent, and there is good reason to believe that there would be enough votes in
the Senate, the traditional graveyard of progressive legislation, to withhold
consent. In any event, a non-assented-to
compact is guaranteed to generate much litigation, and one can easily imagine
that Supreme Court would have little hesitation in striking it down. A second problem is making sure that a state
doesn’t in fact renege on its bargain. A
Congressionally-validated compact might allow judicial enforcement against a
state with buyer’s remorse. But in its
absence, why in the world would California electors choose to vote for, say,
Donald J. Trump in the unlikely event that he in fact beat out Joe Biden by a
single vote nationwide? Or,
concomitantly, if Texas remains predictably red, why would one expect Texas
electors happily to vote for Biden against the wishes of a majority of their
fellow Texas Republicans? Would the
“compact” have sufficient teeth to force states to keep to their bargain? Those are good
questions, though I confess that I’m less perturbed by the legal
critiques. At the present time, nowhere
near the number of states adding up to the magic number of 270 have agreed to
the compact. If we got to that number,
it would, presumably, reflect the widespread public disgust over the election
of “minority” winners, as in 2000 and 2016 (and, possibly, in 2020). Perhaps a state would still be tempted to
renege. But I do wonder if five
politically sagacious lawyers on the Supreme Court would invalidate a compact
that had clear public approval, and where congressional disapproval is so
easily explicable on the grounds of partisan disinclination to disrupt the
status quo, whatever the consequences for the American polity at large (a
question of little concern for committed partisans). Instead, my opposition
to Wegman’s proposal is precisely that it does nothing to solve the fact that
many American presidents have been elected with less than demonstrable majority
support, even if they did come in first.
My own favorite examples, in the modern era, are Richard Nixon in 1968
and Bill Clinton in 1992, each of whom procured 43% of the popular vote. I think that Wegman is just too blasé about
such realities. “Americans seem to be
fine with non-majority-winners,” whether nationally or at the state level. (Rick Perry, for example, won re-election as
Texas’s governor in 2006 with roughly 37% of the vote in a four-candidate
race.) I don’t find this persuasive,
especially because there is such an “easy” solution. That is, one can easily arrange either for
runoffs between the top two candidates in a multi-candidate race or adopt the
so-called “instant runoff,” the Alternative Transferrable Vote with rank-order
voting, by which the winner can plausibly claim demonstrable majority
approval. This is the system in France;
if one doesn’t like looking abroad, one need only to look at Georgia. Consider in this context
the 1860 election, where civil war was triggered in large part because the
39.8% of the popular vote received by Abraham Lincoln turned out to be
sufficient to receive an electoral vote majority entirely from the Northeast
and Midwest. There has always been something strange about the argument
that the Southern preference for war represented the triumph of “bullets” over
“ballots” given the degree to which Lincoln was demonstrably not the choice of
the majority of Americans. Wegman brushes off this example. Foley, on the other hand, offers an
interesting defense of Lincoln’s election, pointing out that Lincoln gained his
majority by getting the majority of votes in enough states to generate the
winning number. Foley’s (justified)
antagonism is toward what he labels the “Jacksonian” system, contrary to the
“Jeffersonian” one that he himself valorizes.
The former allows the plurality
winner in a given state, who by definition has not demonstrated majority
support, to win all of its votes. This is the system adopted in all of the
states save Maine and Nebraska. And
often enough, political scientists or historians can demonstrate that the
plurality winner would in fact have lost in a runoff, as was certainly the case
in both New Hampshire and Florida in 2000, for example. This leads to the phenomenon of the “wrong
winner,” i.e., a winning candidate who prevails only because of this fluke in
the voting system that, Foley argues, violates the “Jeffersonian” assumptions
underlying the understudied Twelfth Amendment that attempted to alleviate the
fiasco of 1800 by forcing electors to vote separately for presidents and vice
presidents. That split is what
almost everyone who thinks about the 12th amendment at all thinks
about; Foley’s distinct contribution is to argue that in addition there was a
strongly majoritarian assumption, even though it was not predicated on a single
national vote total. Thus
“Jeffersonians” had no objection to candidates winning with less than a
majority of the total vote or even, perchance, with a smaller vote total than
the losing candidate at least so long as the winner got a majority of the vote
in enough individual states to provide a majority of electoral votes. From that perspective, Lincoln was a
“Jeffersonian” winner, albeit with less than 40% of the vote and even if one
believes that Lincoln would in fact have lost the race had there been a runoff
between himself and Stephan A. Douglas, who came in second. Although I find Foley’s argument extremely
interesting, I am ultimately not convinced that the “Jeffersonian winner” is
sufficiently more attractive than the “Jacksonian” one to endorse his overall
plea. Indeed, it is not clear
that Lincoln himself would necessarily agree with Foley’s defense of his
automatic legitimacy as a “Jeffersonian winner.” Thus, in his “House Divided” Speech of 1858,
while suggesting there was in effect a conspiracy among James Buchanan, Roger
Taney, Franklin Pierce, and Stephen A. Douglas to nationalize slavery, Lincoln
takes note of the fact that Buchanan’s election in 1856 “fell short of a clear
popular majority by nearly four hundred thousand votes, and so, perhaps, was
not overwhelmingly reliable and satisfactory.”
Foley, however, declares Buchanan to be a “Jeffersonian winner” in that
he indeed received a majority of the votes in the states that gave him the
electoral vote majority that he needed.
1856 had seen three serious candidates for the presidency. Buchanan undeniably came in first, with 45.5%
of the total popular vote, as against John Fremont, the first Republican
candidate for the presidency, with 33.1% and former President Millard Fillmore,
running as a Know Nothing, who garnered 21.5% of the vote. It’s easy enough to predict that a
ranked-choice system, which would be a great improvement on the way we now
conduct elections, would have given Buchanan a clear majority inasmuch as it’s
implausible that the Fillmore voters would have had Lincoln as their second
choice. Still, it’s telling that Lincoln
thought it useful in effect to question Buchanan’s full legitimacy insofar as
he had the demonstrable support of “only” 45.5% of the electorate, a full 5%
more than Lincoln would get in 1860 or, for that matter, almost three percent
more than either Richard Nixon or Bill Clinton received in 1968 or 1992. My skepticism about
Lincoln’s (or other merely plurality winners’) democratic bona fides in no way
represents an endorsement of the actual reasons for secession in 1861, which
had everything to do with maintaining the institution of chattel slavery and
ownership by white supremacists of enslaved Blacks. But Foley himself notes that some Federalists
in 1803 apparently threatened secession (a full decade before the Hartford
Convention during the War of 1812) because of their unhappiness over
Jefferson’s victory, procured in part because of the morally indefensible,
though politically “necessary,” bonus given slave states through the 3/5
Clause. As Mark Graber has elaborated in
some of his own scholarship, the claim that the United States was really “one
people” was dubious from the start, and much of the original Constitution can
be understood only in a more Calhounian perspective as trying to achieve some
way of allowing the distinctly different regions of the United States to live
together. One way, of course, was by
allowing each of the regions some kind of veto power with regard to legislation
viewed as affecting their vital interests.
Whatever one thinks of that premise, it is clear that Lincoln
represented what might termed a more Jacobin version of majority rule, at least
from the perspective of the slave slates who had been uncertain about the
initial Union itself unless they got sufficient guarantees that their interests
would be protected. If one objects to
offering even an iota of constittutional credence to white Southern slaveowners,
then recall that Abolitionists themselves endorsed “No Union with Slaveholders”
and would presumably have happily seceded from the Union that was
all-too-willing to accommodate those who claimed to own other human beings as
chattels. Part of what Garrison called
the “Covenant with Death and Agreement with Hell” was the three-fifths Clause
that guaranteed to slave states excessive power in the House of Representatives
and, therefore, in the electoral college that chose presidents and, therefore,
in the Supreme Court whose members were nominated by slavery-friendly
presidents (save for the Adams father-and-son duo). The electoral system was rigged, very
much in favor of slave interests; what was remarkable about 1860 is that the
rigging seemed to be unravelling, and the losers were unwilling to be good
sports even if, by stipulation, Lincoln’s victory was “Jeffersonian.” Interestingly enough, in
all of the debates about constitutional revision at the end of the 1860s, the
electoral college apparently got almost no attention. Perhaps that is because the Republican Party
apparently in control was able to gain the presidency quite easily during that
decade. Why disturb an apparently good
thing? But, of course, the election of
1876, for some, threatened the renewal of war as Rutherford B. Hayes gained the
White House only because eight Republican election commissioners prevailed over
seven Democrats in awarding contested electoral votes in Florida, Louisiana,
and South Carolina to Hayes. This allowed
him to gain a one-vote electoral-vote majority over Samuel Tilden, who in fact
received more popular votes. (On the
other hand, white marauders in these Southern states had undoubtedly been
successful in discouraging many African-American men from voting—women, of
course, were still ineligible to vote at all—so that it is foolhardy to believe
that Tilden’s majority was necessarily reflective of how a truly free
electorate would have voted.) But 1884
produced what Foley believes to be another “wrong winner,” in Grover Cleveland
(who, ironically or not, lost, Foley believes legitimately, to Benjamin
Harrison in 1888 even though Harrison received fewer overall popular votes). Foley argues in favor of
returning to the “Jeffersonian” system, which, he argues, correctly, would
require no tampering with the Constitution.
Everest need not be climbed. All
that needs to happen, he plausibly argues, is that even one or two of the larger
states return to “Jeffersonianism” and announce that their electoral votes will
go in toto to a single candidate if an only if that candidate demonstrates
majority support in the given state.
That can be demonstrated, should no one win a majority in the “first”
election, through a runoff or recounting the ballots by acknowledging the
rank-order choices of the voters. That
would almost surely be preferable to the present system. But one must still ask why Foley is willing
to settle for what is, at best, only half a loaf that still leaves us
vulnerable to a national plurality winner (like Lincoln, most notably) and,
should there be a “genuine” third-party challenger who earns electoral votes
from enough states, the possibility that no one will get a majority of the
electoral vote and, therefore, that the dreaded “continent election” will take
place in the House of Representatives on a one-state/one-vote basis. Some of Foley’s language
suggests that he really likes the “Jeffersonian system” of “compound”
majorities that pays genuine attention to states as well as to the national
electorate. Perhaps that’s true, though
I don’t think he spells out a convincing argument in its behalf. (Perhaps I’m just too “nationalist,” as
against his respect for “federalism” and “states rights,” but I’m not clear
this is the case.). What I think what is more centrally operative is his
consistent, and altogether justified, tone of despair about doing what is
really necessary, which is eliminating the whole damned thing via a
constitutional amendment that would also, along the way, address the fatal
problem in Wegman’s proposal, i.e., the acceptance of mere plurality
winners. Typical is his comment that an
“instant runoff” system would be “desirable, but it would take a constitutional
amendment and this is impractical for the foreseeable future.” That is no doubt correct. The motto for people like myself, who wish
wholesale—or even partial--constitutional reform is suggested by Dante’s
inscription over the gates of Hell:
“Abandon all hope ye who enter here.”
|
Books by Balkinization Bloggers Linda C. McClain and Aziza Ahmed, The Routledge Companion to Gender and COVID-19 (Routledge, 2024) David Pozen, The Constitution of the War on Drugs (Oxford University Press, 2024) Jack M. Balkin, Memory and Authority: The Uses of History in Constitutional Interpretation (Yale University Press, 2024) Mark A. Graber, Punish Treason, Reward Loyalty: The Forgotten Goals of Constitutional Reform after the Civil War (University of Kansas Press, 2023) Jack M. Balkin, What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Most Controversial Decision - Revised Edition (NYU Press, 2023) Andrew Koppelman, Burning Down the House: How Libertarian Philosophy Was Corrupted by Delusion and Greed (St. Martin’s Press, 2022) Gerard N. Magliocca, Washington's Heir: The Life of Justice Bushrod Washington (Oxford University Press, 2022) Joseph Fishkin and William E. Forbath, The Anti-Oligarchy Constitution: Reconstructing the Economic Foundations of American Democracy (Harvard University Press, 2022) Mark Tushnet and Bojan Bugaric, Power to the People: Constitutionalism in the Age of Populism (Oxford University Press 2021). Mark Philip Bradley and Mary L. Dudziak, eds., Making the Forever War: Marilyn B. Young on the Culture and Politics of American Militarism Culture and Politics in the Cold War and Beyond (University of Massachusetts Press, 2021). Jack M. Balkin, What Obergefell v. Hodges Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Same-Sex Marriage Decision (Yale University Press, 2020) Frank Pasquale, New Laws of Robotics: Defending Human Expertise in the Age of AI (Belknap Press, 2020) Jack M. Balkin, The Cycles of Constitutional Time (Oxford University Press, 2020) Mark Tushnet, Taking Back the Constitution: Activist Judges and the Next Age of American Law (Yale University Press 2020). Andrew Koppelman, Gay Rights vs. Religious Liberty?: The Unnecessary Conflict (Oxford University Press, 2020) Ezekiel J Emanuel and Abbe R. Gluck, The Trillion Dollar Revolution: How the Affordable Care Act Transformed Politics, Law, and Health Care in America (PublicAffairs, 2020) Linda C. McClain, Who's the Bigot?: Learning from Conflicts over Marriage and Civil Rights Law (Oxford University Press, 2020) Sanford Levinson and Jack M. Balkin, Democracy and Dysfunction (University of Chicago Press, 2019) Sanford Levinson, Written in Stone: Public Monuments in Changing Societies (Duke University Press 2018) Mark A. Graber, Sanford Levinson, and Mark Tushnet, eds., Constitutional Democracy in Crisis? (Oxford University Press 2018) Gerard Magliocca, The Heart of the Constitution: How the Bill of Rights became the Bill of Rights (Oxford University Press, 2018) Cynthia Levinson and Sanford Levinson, Fault Lines in the Constitution: The Framers, Their Fights, and the Flaws that Affect Us Today (Peachtree Publishers, 2017) Brian Z. Tamanaha, A Realistic Theory of Law (Cambridge University Press 2017) Sanford Levinson, Nullification and Secession in Modern Constitutional Thought (University Press of Kansas 2016) Sanford Levinson, An Argument Open to All: Reading The Federalist in the 21st Century (Yale University Press 2015) Stephen M. Griffin, Broken Trust: Dysfunctional Government and Constitutional Reform (University Press of Kansas, 2015) Frank Pasquale, The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information (Harvard University Press, 2015) Bruce Ackerman, We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution (Harvard University Press, 2014) Balkinization Symposium on We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution Joseph Fishkin, Bottlenecks: A New Theory of Equal Opportunity (Oxford University Press, 2014) Mark A. Graber, A New Introduction to American Constitutionalism (Oxford University Press, 2013) John Mikhail, Elements of Moral Cognition: Rawls' Linguistic Analogy and the Cognitive Science of Moral and Legal Judgment (Cambridge University Press, 2013) Gerard N. Magliocca, American Founding Son: John Bingham and the Invention of the Fourteenth Amendment (New York University Press, 2013) Stephen M. Griffin, Long Wars and the Constitution (Harvard University Press, 2013) Andrew Koppelman, The Tough Luck Constitution and the Assault on Health Care Reform (Oxford University Press, 2013) James E. Fleming and Linda C. McClain, Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues (Harvard University Press, 2013) Balkinization Symposium on Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues Andrew Koppelman, Defending American Religious Neutrality (Harvard University Press, 2013) Brian Z. Tamanaha, Failing Law Schools (University of Chicago Press, 2012) Sanford Levinson, Framed: America's 51 Constitutions and the Crisis of Governance (Oxford University Press, 2012) Linda C. McClain and Joanna L. Grossman, Gender Equality: Dimensions of Women's Equal Citizenship (Cambridge University Press, 2012) Mary Dudziak, War Time: An Idea, Its History, Its Consequences (Oxford University Press, 2012) Jack M. Balkin, Living Originalism (Harvard University Press, 2011) Jason Mazzone, Copyfraud and Other Abuses of Intellectual Property Law (Stanford University Press, 2011) Richard W. Garnett and Andrew Koppelman, First Amendment Stories, (Foundation Press 2011) Jack M. Balkin, Constitutional Redemption: Political Faith in an Unjust World (Harvard University Press, 2011) Gerard Magliocca, The Tragedy of William Jennings Bryan: Constitutional Law and the Politics of Backlash (Yale University Press, 2011) Bernard Harcourt, The Illusion of Free Markets: Punishment and the Myth of Natural Order (Harvard University Press, 2010) Bruce Ackerman, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic (Harvard University Press, 2010) Balkinization Symposium on The Decline and Fall of the American Republic Ian Ayres. Carrots and Sticks: Unlock the Power of Incentives to Get Things Done (Bantam Books, 2010) Mark Tushnet, Why the Constitution Matters (Yale University Press 2010) Ian Ayres and Barry Nalebuff: Lifecycle Investing: A New, Safe, and Audacious Way to Improve the Performance of Your Retirement Portfolio (Basic Books, 2010) Jack M. Balkin, The Laws of Change: I Ching and the Philosophy of Life (2d Edition, Sybil Creek Press 2009) Brian Z. Tamanaha, Beyond the Formalist-Realist Divide: The Role of Politics in Judging (Princeton University Press 2009) Andrew Koppelman and Tobias Barrington Wolff, A Right to Discriminate?: How the Case of Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale Warped the Law of Free Association (Yale University Press 2009) Jack M. Balkin and Reva B. Siegel, The Constitution in 2020 (Oxford University Press 2009) Heather K. Gerken, The Democracy Index: Why Our Election System Is Failing and How to Fix It (Princeton University Press 2009) Mary Dudziak, Exporting American Dreams: Thurgood Marshall's African Journey (Oxford University Press 2008) David Luban, Legal Ethics and Human Dignity (Cambridge Univ. Press 2007) Ian Ayres, Super Crunchers: Why Thinking-By-Numbers is the New Way to be Smart (Bantam 2007) Jack M. Balkin, James Grimmelmann, Eddan Katz, Nimrod Kozlovski, Shlomit Wagman and Tal Zarsky, eds., Cybercrime: Digital Cops in a Networked Environment (N.Y.U. Press 2007) Jack M. Balkin and Beth Simone Noveck, The State of Play: Law, Games, and Virtual Worlds (N.Y.U. Press 2006) Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines (Yale University Press 2006) Brian Tamanaha, Law as a Means to an End (Cambridge University Press 2006) Sanford Levinson, Our Undemocratic Constitution (Oxford University Press 2006) Mark Graber, Dred Scott and the Problem of Constitutional Evil (Cambridge University Press 2006) Jack M. Balkin, ed., What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said (N.Y.U. Press 2005) Sanford Levinson, ed., Torture: A Collection (Oxford University Press 2004) Balkin.com homepage Bibliography Conlaw.net Cultural Software Writings Opeds The Information Society Project BrownvBoard.com Useful Links Syllabi and Exams |