[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 69-71]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                         THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, this Saturday, January 6, there will be 
an extraordinary event--which occurs every 4 years--created by our 
Constitution. There will be the count of the vote of the electoral 
college, the official determination of the identity of the next 
President of the United States.
  Probably this year more than most, we are sensitive to this matter, 
and we understand what led up to it--a historic election where the 
Democratic candidate for the President, Al Gore, outpolled the 
Republican candidate for President, George W. Bush, by over 400,000 
votes nationwide and lost the election.
  It is not the first time in American history this has occurred. If I 
am not mistaken, it is the fourth time we have elected a President who 
failed to win the popular vote.
  But the rules of the game and the rules of this election were 
dictated by those who wrote the Constitution many years ago when they 
made it clear that the process would not be by a popular vote but, 
rather, by the vote of electors in an electoral college.
  What is the electoral college?
  I think we can recall from our earliest civics classes that it is a 
creation of the Constitution which assigns to every State an elector 
for each Member of Congress and for the two Senators.
  In my home State of Illinois, with 20 Members of the House and 2 
Senators, we have 22 electoral votes. The State of Wyoming, with one 
Congressman and two Senators, has three electoral votes.
  So the voters who cast their votes at the polls in Arkansas, 
Illinois, and Wyoming on November 7 were not voting for Al Gore, George 
Bush, Ralph Nader, or anyone else. They were voting for electors--men 
and women who then came and ultimately cast their votes in State 
capitols a week or so ago. Those votes will be counted in the House 
Chamber this coming Saturday.
  I, for one, believe this is a system which should be abolished.
  The electoral college has been in place for over 200 years. You might 
wonder how men who wrote the Constitution, in their infinite wisdom, 
came up with this idea that the American people would not elect the 
President of the United States but the state legislatures would appoint 
electors in each State, who would then elect the President of the 
United States.
  Today, by state laws, the people elect the electors on a winner-take-
all basis in each state. There are two exceptions. Two States, Maine 
and Nebraska, allocate their electors by congressional districts. But, 
by and large, every other State has a winner-take-all situation.
  The reason this was created by our Constitution is interesting. We 
generally think of elections in a democracy where people cast their 
votes and a majority will win. That applies to almost every election, 
whether it is for

[[Page 70]]

school board, or for mayor, or for county official, or for Governor, or 
for Senator, or for Congressman. But in the original Constitution, the 
men who wrote that document in the name of democracy showed a distinct 
fear of democracy, because they did not give the power to the people or 
the power to the voters in America to choose Federal offices in most 
cases.
  In fact, in two out of three cases where the American people were 
given the right under this Constitution to choose a Federal officer, 
they were to do it indirectly, not directly--indirectly in the case of 
the President with the electoral college, and in the original 
Constitution indirectly when it came to this Chamber.
  The Senators were not elected by the people of the United States 
under this Constitution. No. They were chosen by State legislatures. It 
wasn't until the 17th amendment to the Constitution in 1913, after a 
great deal of corruption and scandal, that we decided to change that 
and create a direct vote where the people of the United States each 
choose their two Senators to represent their States. It was a 
breakthrough, really, democratizing the electoral process.
  When they, of course, empowered the people in each congressional 
district to choose a Member of the House of Representatives, that was a 
direct vote--the only direct vote in the Constitution given by our 
Founding Fathers in this democracy.
  Out of the three opportunities--for President, for Senators, and for 
the House of Representatives--our Founding Fathers said in two out of 
three in this document: We don't trust the people to make this choice 
directly.
  Why not? Why wouldn't they trust the voters in a democracy?
  Their reasoning in creating the electoral college was very clear. 
They said first: How in the world can a voter in the State of Virginia 
ever come to know a candidate for President from a State as far away as 
Massachusetts? He--because they were all men--may never hear of this 
candidate and may never meet this candidate. So we had better create a 
system where it isn't a direct vote by a voter for a President but, 
rather, an indirect vote.
  Secondly, of course, there was a concern not only that there wouldn't 
be this knowledge of the candidate, but a concern that they had to get 
the Constitution ratified, and the smaller States in this new national 
consolidation were concerned about their power. So the people who wrote 
the Constitution said in the electoral college, the States will decide. 
We will give more power to smaller States. That is why we have an 
electoral college today.
  Some people like the electoral college. A lot of people from smaller 
States like the old electoral college. Let me illustrate for a moment 
why. If there are 281 million people in America, which is a rough 
estimate of our population, and we have 538 electoral votes, which is 
the subtotal of the membership of the House of Representatives and the 
Senate plus 3 for the District of Columbia, then we roughly have about 
522,000 Americans for every electoral vote cast for President. That is 
kind of the standard by which to judge.
  On a clear equality of this system, each electoral vote should be 
represented by 522,000 Americans. Take a State such as Wyoming. Wyoming 
has a population of about 480,000 people. Wyoming has three electoral 
votes. So if one lives in Wyoming, you are a bonus voter for President. 
Every 160,000 population in Wyoming gives one electoral vote for 
President. I live in the State of Illinois with 12 million people and 
22 electoral votes, about 550,000 people per electoral vote for 
President.
  We can see the distinction, the difference. Why should some get a 
bonus in voting for President because they live in the State of Wyoming 
as opposed to living in any other State? That was created by the 
Constitution.
  I am not raising this issue in this question because of this specific 
election. Some might think, standing on the Democratic side of the 
aisle, that is what it is about. I first raised the issue in 1993, and 
I raised it again a week before the election in November of this last 
year. I understood, and I hope others do, what is at issue here goes 
way beyond any single election and the election of any single person. I 
happen to believe that in a democracy, one that I respect and thank God 
I had a chance to be born into, that the people should speak through 
their votes, and a majority vote should rule, as it does in virtually 
every democratic institution.
  That is not the case when it comes to the electoral college. In fact, 
we have an indirect system, a winner take all system, where States are 
voting in disproportionate strength based on their population. Smaller 
States like it because they have more power. They believe it attracts 
more attention to them during the course of a national campaign. From 
that perspective, it is hard to argue. From the perspective of a nation 
that is trying to say to every American, we want to be able to say you 
elected the President, how can you do that under an electoral college 
system which gives bonus votes, triple the voting power, in some 
States, over other States? That is exactly what happened in this 
election and every single election since our Constitution was enacted 
so many years ago.
  So on a bipartisan basis Congressman Ray LaHood, a Republican from 
Peoria, IL, and I have introduced a proposed constitutional amendment 
to abolish the electoral college and to say that to be elected 
President of the United States you will be elected by popular vote of 
the people nationwide, and you must win at least 40 percent of the 
vote. If any candidate fails to win 40 percent of the vote, then the 
top two candidates have a runoff election a short time after the 
original election.
  It is different, but I think it reflects more what a democracy should 
represent, the voice of the people and the vote of the people, instead 
of an electoral college which has become a constitutional dinosaur.
  I hope families across America will take some time on Saturday to 
turn on C-SPAN and have their children sit down and watch the vote of 
the electoral college. It will be like watching a dinosaur roam through 
the jungle because that is what we have as a system to elect the 
President of the United States.
  Now, having stated my views on this issue and why I feel this way, 
let me give a candid political analysis. I don't have a chance in 
passing this constitutional amendment. I have to bring this amendment 
to the floor of the Senate where the small States have the same number 
of votes. The smaller States will stop us in our tracks. If there was 
some miracle of miracles and we passed it through the Senate and the 
House, where do we send it? To the States, where we need three-fourths 
of the States to approve it, and the smaller States will stop us there.
  That is why there have been more proposed amendments to this section 
of the Constitution than any other, and none of them have passed. It is 
an interesting academic discussion. I hope it doesn't end there, 
because if it ends there it is academic and does not help us understand 
a frustration that voters feel as to what happened on November 7 of 
this year.
  Let me suggest that what Maine and Nebraska have done, other States 
can do: Allocate electoral votes by congressional district that gets 
closer to the people's will. In those States, if a candidate for 
President wins the votes in a congressional district, he received that 
vote, and the one who won a majority of the votes in the State wins the 
two votes that are allocated for the Senators. At least there would be 
some allocation of votes within a State that would be closer to the 
will of the people.
  Let me also add that I think we would be derelict in our duty if we 
overlooked the reality of the failure of our election process on 
November 7, the failure of a process which generated some $3 billion in 
spending by candidates and barely brought out a scant majority of 
voters in the United States who participated. Think of all the 
attention paid to that Presidential campaign and election after 
November 7 with the recounts, the court cases, the Supreme Court, on 
and on and on. Half the people in this country really didn't have much 
of a reason to watch it because they hadn't voted in the

[[Page 71]]

first place. They were observing something that was as foreign as 
watching an Australian rules football game, trying to understand what 
this is all about.
  We ought to be reflecting on the fact that so few people participate 
in our elections. I think it is important to think anew in this new 
millennium, in this new century, as to how we will make America not 
only more democratic in name but more democratic in practice; what we 
can do to make our elections more effective, to bring more people to 
the polls. I think we ought to approach it with an open mind.
  Why do we vote on Tuesday? I don't know. Somebody thought Tuesday was 
a good day at one point in time. But is it a good day now for most 
Americans, or is there a better day? Could we find a way to vote on a 
weekend without, perhaps, raising some religious objections from some 
groups? I hope so. Can we find ways to vote that are more convenient 
for voters? In States such as Oregon and Washington, more and more 
people vote by mail. In fact, in Oregon virtually all the ballots were 
cast by mail. My brother-in-law lives in the State of Washington. He is 
a permanent absentee voter. He always receives his ballot by mail and 
returns it. You can do that in Illinois, but it is pretty difficult. We 
should be trying to establish a national means by which people can vote 
without these obstacles.
  And let's talk about the voting machinery. In my home State of 
Illinois, and in 40 percent of the polling places across America, they 
have these infamous Votomatic punch systems. I have been through enough 
election contests as a staffer, as an attorney, and as an elected 
official, that by the time I finish punching my ballot out, I stop for 
a minute, turn it to the light, I knock off the chads. I know what to 
look for. I know what can disqualify my vote. How many Americans know 
how to do that? Probably more today than last year. Still, an awful lot 
have gone to the polls and made a personal sacrifice to do their civic 
duty to cast their vote and have their vote be heard, when it comes to 
the election of the President, only to learn afterwards that tens, if 
not hundreds of thousands, of ballots have been voided, possibly their 
own. That is not fair. It is not American. It is not something we ought 
to tolerate. I think it is more than a coincidence that the biggest 
breakdown in disqualification of these ballots turns out to be in 
inner-city precincts. I don't think that is any accident. In many 
instances, that is where we have the oldest voting equipment, we have 
less attention paid to the education of voters, and, as a consequence, 
folks who are making a genuine effort to do their best and do their 
civic duty are denied that opportunity.
  By and large, this decision on how to run a campaign and how to 
manage an election is a State and local responsibility, as it should 
be. But my colleague from the State of New York, Senator Schumer, who 
sits next to me, has proposed that we bring forward a fund for 
electoral reform across America and create incentives and opportunities 
for States and localities to upgrade their voting equipment.
  Let me tell you about a piece of voting machinery that is used in 
South America. It is a piece of machinery where you have indicated the 
name of the candidate and the office and a symbol for the candidate's 
party. When you vote and push on the screen for your choice, up pops 
the picture of the candidate to verify that you picked the person for 
whom you want to vote. Doesn't that sound modernistic and futuristic? 
You may be surprised to know the equipment is produced in the United 
States. It is sold in South America, but it has not become popular here 
in this country. But think of the unlimited possibilities for us to 
create a system that is honest and fair and helpful to voters, instead 
of one creating obstacles and problems that can be strewn in their 
paths so they would leave the polling place uncertain and maybe 
frustrated.
  During this great debate over the election of November 7, 2000, with 
this electoral vote next Saturday and the swearing in of President 
George W. Bush on January 20, in just a few weeks, if we do not stop to 
think about the long-term impact of the integrity of voting in America, 
I think we are derelict in our duty as elected officials. I hope, if we 
are not going to amend our great Constitution to eliminate the 
electoral college, we will at least dedicate ourselves, on a bipartisan 
basis, to modernizing the machinery of elections across America so the 
next election in 2 years or beyond will be a fair election, a more 
honest election, and one that creates more opportunities.
  I do not believe there is a partisan spin to this. I believe 
Republican candidates, Democratic candidates, and independent 
candidates alike can all be disadvantaged by the uncertainties of the 
current election system. We need to encourage more people to be 
involved, and we need to say to them: We are doing everything within 
our power to use the technology and resources of America to make 
elections in this country an even better experience for all Americans.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Johnson). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Edwards). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________