[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 12 (Tuesday, January 30, 2001)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E65]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


  INTRODUCTION OF A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROVIDING FOR THE DIRECT 
              ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT

                            of massachusetts

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, January 30, 2001

  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing legislation to 
abolish the electoral college and provide for the direct popular 
election of the President and Vice President of the United States.
  Until our recent national crash course in the federal election 
process, most Americans saw the Electoral College as a harmless 
anachronism. But 10 days ago, for the first time in over a century, the 
nation watched as the oath of office was administered to an elected 
president who failed to secure a plurality of the votes cast. The 
Constitution is clear, and I do not question the lawfulness or 
legitimacy of electing a president under these circumstances. Indeed, I 
join all patriotic citizens in wishing our new president well. But we 
must also ask--as many of my constituents have--whether an electoral 
system that negates the votes of half a million citizens is compatible 
with democratic values. This is not a partisan question. Indeed, I 
first raised it on the eve of the election, when it looked as though 
the shoe might be on the other foot--when many were predicting that the 
candidate of my own party might prevail with a minority of the popular 
vote. And the answer to that question is far more important than the 
political fortunes of any one candidate or party.
  The Electoral College presents a troubling contradiction for our 
democracy in at least two respects. First, and most obviously, it 
cannot be squared with the principle of majority rule. To award the 
presidency to the loser of the popular vote undermines respect for the 
system and compromises the new president's mandate to govern.
  Second, the Electoral College is inconsistent with the principle of 
``one person, one vote''. This is because the system by which electors 
are assigned gives disproportionate weight to less populous states. 
Massachusetts has one electoral vote for every 500,000 people, while 
Wyoming has one for every 160,000. In other words, a vote cast in 
Wyoming counts three times as much as a vote cast in Massachusetts.
  Some defend the Electoral College because it carries the weight of 
constitutional authority. I agree that the Constitution should be 
amended only rarely and with great care. But the system designed by the 
framers for electing the president has already been amended, by the 
12th and 22nd Amendments. And until ratification of the 17th Amendment 
in 1913, the U.S. Senate was elected not by the people, but by state 
legislatures. Few would argue that the original purpose of the 
Electoral College retains any relevance today. It reflected a mistrust 
of the electorate which we no longer endorse--the same mistrust that 
denied the people the right to elect their senators, and withheld the 
vote altogether from women, African-Americans and persons who did not 
own property.
  Far from embodying some essential constitutional principle, the 
Electoral College was a political compromise, born of an era in which 
the states were 13 separate sovereignties determined to defend their 
interests. While regional differences have not disappeared, they have 
been greatly diluted by the growth of a common national identity. After 
200 years of migration of people and ideas, the states themselves are 
far more heterogeneous, and far more similar, than when the compromise 
was struck.
  While admitting that the original justification for the Electoral 
College no longer exists, its defenders claim that it serves some 
other, modern purpose. They argue, for example, that without the 
Electoral College, candidates will campaign only in major population 
centers, ignoring more sparsely populated regions. Yet even the 
residents of rural states tend to live within close proximity to a 
major metropolitan area. And even if their fears were to materialize, 
it is hard to see how this would be worse than the targeted campaigning 
in which the candidates recently engaged, writing off whole sections of 
the country and concentrating only on the so-called ``battleground 
states.'' With every vote in play, candidates would no longer have an 
incentive to take anyone for granted. Others contend that abolishing 
the Electoral College would further undermine the stability and 
finality of the electoral process. They point out that Florida's was 
not the only state race to be decided by a very small margin, and argue 
that if every vote were to count equally, recounts and court challenges 
would proliferate. Yet wouldn't this be likelier to happen if the 
Electoral College is retained? Without it, state wins and losses would 
no longer have electoral significance. All that would matter is the 
nationwide count.
  Let's not forget that what happened in Florida was only a glimpse of 
the problems the Electoral College can cause. Had neither candidate 
received the required 270 electoral votes, the election would have been 
thrown into the House of Representatives--where the controversy could 
have taken weeks or months longer to resolve. I am under no illusion 
about the difficulty of enacting a constitutional amendment. But now is 
the time to act--while the memory of our recent experience is fresh. 
Congress has considered Electoral College reform before--but only when 
spurred on by electoral crises. The Senate held hearings in 1992, when 
it seemed that the Perot candidacy might deadlock the Electoral 
College. After George Wallace ran as a third-party candidate in 1968, 
the House actually approved a constitutional amendment, but it fell 
victim to a Senate filibuster.
  We shouldn't wait for the next crisis before confronting the problem. 
There have been several thoughtful proposals to reform the Electoral 
College without a constitutional amendment, and they deserve a hearing. 
My own view, however, is that halfway measures cannot address the 
fundamental contradiction which the Electoral College represents in a 
mature democracy. That's why the bill I am introducing today would 
abolish it outright. Public officials, from selectmen to senators, are 
chosen by majority vote. That's the way it's supposed to work in a 
democracy. And that's how we should elect the president of the greatest 
democracy on earth.

                          ____________________