A Geographic Election

Following the election and throughout the transition, many conservative and Republican voters, still basking in the victorious  GOP sweep, were patting themselves on the back and complimenting the Founding Fathers. After all, it was their "Genius" to create a system that prevented the dense population centers from "dictating" government policy to the rural regions. Meanwhile, liberals and Democrats were, once again, bemoaning the "obsolete" electoral college that, once again, allowed a Republican to win the White House without the popular vote (twice in the last 5 Presidential elections). Either way you look at it, you cannot deny that Donald Trump won the Presidency not by winning the most votes, but by a geographic anomaly.

United States Constitutional Convention - 1787

I do not disagree that the Founding Fathers were brilliant in the creation of this new nation and the revised Federal government in 1787. The original Federal Government, based on the Articles of Confederation, was ineffective. However, do not extend their genius to imply that they ever imagined their small republic would grow to 50 states. Nor could the Founding Fathers have ever imagined the financial strength and dominance of our current 2 political parties. Actually, the greatest measure of their genius can be found in Article 5 of the U.S. Constitution. This Article describes the process to amend the Constitution.

It would require a Constitution Amendment or another Constitutional Convention to eliminate the Electoral College. Short of that, there are several measures we can do as a nation to ensure that ALL elections are fair and ensure that each person's vote is counted equally. Most have been discussed in the news and social media, and many have one or more organizations dedicated to fighting and soliciting for (or against) these issues. These issues include:

• eliminate gerrymandering;
• reinstate election financial reform;
• mandate Congressional term limits;
• eliminate the winner-take-all approach to awarding State delegates;
• mandate a minimum number of voting precincts in densely populated areas;
• eliminate intrusive voter ID laws to address non-existent voter fraud; and 
• make Election Day a Federal holiday.

In most cases I concur with making these changes, in others I am a bit more skeptical. Term limits would not be required if people would just vote and if some of these other measures became law. Furthermore, term limits would result in a revolving door of lobbyists and legislators. You would need to use a score card to tell current legislators from the former ones who would lobby for a living. I have even heard of proposing mandatory voting (which should not be required in a "free" society). However, nobody has mentioned one way to make our elections more fair: overturning of the Apportionment Act of 1911.

Apportionment Act of 1911

The number of each state's electoral college delegates is established by combining the number of the state's U.S. Representatives and adding 2 (for each Senator) as established in the Constitution (Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2). While it is clear that each state has 2 U.S. Senators, the number of elected Representatives was first established in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution which reads as follows:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse [sic] three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

It is clear from this clause that much of it is no longer valid. For example, the famous "three fifths compromise" was included to increase the representation of the southern states by counting each slave as 3/5 of a free white. However, it is clear that the intent of the Founding Fathers was to have representation based on population.

Obviously, we cannot maintain representation near the "number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand" requirement, which would require over 10,000 U.S. representatives. However we continue to maintain the 1 representative minimum for each state requirement.

The number of Representatives continued to grow until the Apportionment Act of 1911 was passed. This act limited the number of Representatives in the House to 435, when it was amended in 1912. This number has been maintained since the 63rd Congress, with one exception*. The Reapportionment Act of 1929 provided the method to reallocate the number of seats as population changes occurred and the Apportionment Act of 1941 made this process self-executing after each census.

* - There were 437 representatives in the 1950's when Alaska and Hawaii were admitted into the union. The number was reduced back to 435 following the 1960 census and the 1962 election.

Although I am not a fan of increasing the size of Congress, this maximum number poses two issues associated with congressional representation as well as the Electoral College.. First, the population in 1910 was over 92 million. By the 2010 census the US had grown to over 300 million. Second, each state is still required to have a minimum of one U.S. representatives (or 3 Electoral College delegates).

As the graphic indicates, residents from rural states have greater congressional representation in the House than do residence in states with greater populations. By dividing the population of California (the most populous state) by that of Wyoming (the least), California should have 66 Representatives and 68 electoral delegates (rather than 53 and 55, respectively) to match the amount of representation Wyoming has in the House and Electoral College. Based on this approach, Ohio should have 20 Representatives, rather than 16.

Obviously, the hallowed halls of the House would swell if each state's representation were based on the ratio of its population with the least populated state's. So what? Can you honestly say that Federal gridlock would worsen?

Conclusion

So how can we prevent another geographic Presidential election? There are many ways to balance representation in the House and improve our Presidential election process. Some of these ideas (eliminating the Electoral College or the minimum 1 Representative per state requirement) would require a Constitutional Amendment. Overturning or passing a new Apportionment Act would not require a Constitutional Amendment, but given our current Republican dominated government, it is unlikely to be introduced, let alone discussed.

Of course this is all moot when you consider that over 40 percent of eligible voters did not cast a vote during the past election. Off year and midterm elections consistently show even worse voter participation.

I have often heard it said that Americans deserve a better government. Based on that percentage of non-participation, I disagree. Americans have the government they deserve. we will only deserve a better system when more Americans start taking part in our government and actually voting.

-- Food for Thought