Electoral College and the Two-Party System

In November of 2000 the country and most of the world were turned upside down waiting on endless court battles on who will be the most influential position in the world. After a trip to the Supreme Court the decision was made final. We ended with a man that did not gain a victory in the populous vote, but did win a majority of the electoral votes. With all of this chaos brought us to a new retrospection to the way presidential elections are held and the pros and cons of our current system. Some have stated that the Electoral College should be removed to better represent the majority vote. Others have stated that a multi-party system would better serve the country and that the two-party system is the problem. I would say that I disagree with both of these statements. I will first say that the Electoral College was not the problem in the election, but it worked in exactly the way it was supposed to. Secondly, the two-party system is not a system that is enforced but more a natural effect of our form of republican government.

Looking at the figures of the 2000 election, we see that the nation was divided. One side was made up of conservatives with the religious fundamentalist, the individualist, the pro-lifers, and many other groups that believed in a candidate that was in tune with them. And, the other side was made up of liberals that included groups like the environmentalist, the unions, pro-choicers, and many more that believe in an alternate candidate. In the middle are people who are moderates, people that do not involve themselves in political issues until the time to decide the presidency. And, this group ends up dividing itself in to these two factions as well.

The vote totals showed that there was more then the issues that divided the country. Location also dictated how people voted. In the states with the greatest amount of voters in the metropolitan areas voted at a 55% - 65% rate for Al Gore, with areas like DC voting at an 85% to 9% for Gore and rural areas like Wyoming, Utah and Idaho had 68% for Bush. But, in states that were mixed with rural and metropolitan voters were the states that decided the election. Oregon, New Mexico, Wisconsin, and Iowa, were all states that selected Al Gore by less then 1%. The infamous Florida election was .1% difference. Not surprisingly the popular vote for the 2000 election was split evenly with a .51% difference, 48.38% to 47.87%. The electoral vote represented this split of the populous vote well. The closeness of the populous vote in these states is best described by the fact that if New Mexico, Wisconsin, and Iowa would have voted just 10,000 votes to the right, Florida would not of mattered. And, if 7000 more people voted for Gore in New Hampshire it would have been a one electoral win for him.

The popular vote being so close, the states became a player. With each of the states receiving minimum of three Electoral votes instead of just one for each district, it gives an electoral benefit for the small states, en masse, to help stop the “Favorite Son” syndrome and to protect the rights of the minority of the smaller states. Since George Bush captured more individual states he was able to win a majority of the Electoral vote. Even though the popular vote was a small victory for Gore, George Bush won the election because he appealed to a greater diversity of people. So, we see that the Electoral College did work the way it was designed to.

With the issue of the Electoral College addressed, I would like to dive into the issue of the Third and multi-parties. What some people are proposing is, if we had a Third party or a multi-party system it would be better for the political wellness of the country. I view the two-party system as a natural consequence of our form of Republic. With the need for a majority of the Electoral votes to keep the election from going to the House, factions need to work together to achieve their goals.

At the time of the creation of the Constitution there were no national parties, nor did the creators think that there would be. Just four years later, we had two, the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist. Two parties seemed to be the natural choice. The next move in the parties happened when the Anti-Federalist fell to the wayside and the Democratic-Republicans led by Thomas Jefferson became the dominate party and the Federalist gave way to the National-Republicans and then to the Anti-Masons, the Whigs, and finally to the Republicans of today.

During all the years of political change, the nation has always moved to a two-party system. There have been four occasions in the last 100 years that a third party has gotten electoral votes in the election for the Presidency. Of these four only Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican running as an alternative to the Republican nominee Taft, was able to garner a second place finish.

One reason the two-party system works in our form of government is that our parties encompass many factions. The Republican Party is considered a Conservative party and includes the Pro-Life group, the religious evangelicals, the anti-tax crowd, the gun owners rights groups, the limited government group, and people who believe in capitalism. The Democratic Party is considered a Liberal party and factions like the Pro-Choice group, Environmentalist, Gun Control crowd, the Pro-activist government crowd, and the Unions seem to gravitate to it.

Having these Parties so diametrically opposed to each other gives the public a choice and the parties a responsibility to make decisions to balance the wants of the inner factions and also adjusting the message to help attract persons that are not affiliated with either of the parties. In this way the need for more then two parties is not there. There are some groups that do not believe in the compromise aspect of two-party system and have created other smaller parties, but these groups do not gain national power, although they have won regional races. The Green Party, the Libertarian Party, and the Reform Party are all parties that have attempted to gain national office, but can only garner a minimal support from its most loyal members. The way they can gain power is open them selves to other factions and have one of the two big dogs stop reaching out to others. This is possible, but not likely.



*All election statistics were taken from http://www.infoplease.com/