9.16 Myth that the Electoral College Produces Good Presidents.

UCLA Law Professor Daniel H. Lowenstein has argued that there are “11 good reasons”[377] not to change the current system of electing the President to a nationwide popular election:

“The Electoral College produces good presidents. … The Electoral College has produced Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Cleveland, Theodore Roosevelt, Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, and Reagan.”[378]

Although these 11 Presidents were indeed distinguished, Lowenstein does not offer any argument connecting the ascension of these 11 individuals to the presidency with the Electoral College or the current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes.

Lowenstein starts his list with George Washington. However, it was universally recognized at the 1787 Constitutional Convention that Washington would be the first President, and he was elected unanimously in both 1789 and 1792. Washington would have become President under virtually any election system, including a nationwide election.

Lowenstein’s remarks were made in a debate about whether to change the current state-by-state winner-take-all system to a nationwide popular election.

However, Washington was elected before the era when the state-by-state winner-take-all rule became widespread. Only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes when George Washington was elected in 1789 and 1792.[379]

Lowenstein credits the Electoral College with success when it resulted in the election of “good Presidents” such as Thomas Jefferson. However, he does not criticize the Electoral College for failing to elect Jefferson on two of the three occasions when he ran (1796 and 1800).[380]

Moreover, the single time (1804) when the Electoral College elected Jefferson occurred before the era when the state-by-state winner-take-all rule became widespread.[381]

Lowenstein includes two Presidents on his list of 11 good Presidents who were defeated in the Electoral College after receiving the most popular votes nationwide, namely Andrew Jackson in 1824 and Grover Cleveland in 1888. Why does Lowenstein credit the Electoral College with success when it elected Jackson in 1828 and Cleveland in 1884 and 1892, but not criticize it for failing to elect Jackson in 1824 and Cleveland in 1888?[382]

Moreover, another “good President” on Lowenstein’s list, namely Theodore Roosevelt, won the Electoral College on one occasion when he ran (in 1904), but lost the Electoral College on the other occasion when he ran (in 1912).

Lowenstein also credits the winner-take-all rule for producing Harry Truman and Theodore Roosevelt, even though they both became President as the result of the death of their predecessors.

More importantly, Lowenstein does not offer any argument as to why several Presidents on his list (or other equally talented individuals) could not have risen to the presidency in the absence of the Electoral College or the winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes.

How, specifically, was the Electoral College or winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes essential to the emergence of, say, Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, Eisenhower, or Reagan? All of them won both the most popular votes nationwide as well as the Electoral College on each occasion when they ran.

Moreover, Lowenstein provides no argument as to why a system in which the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia would necessarily not result in good Presidents.

Finally, and perhaps most tellingly, Lowenstein’s list of 11 good Presidents fails to account for the 35 other Presidents produced by the Electoral College.

In particular, Lowenstein does not mention the pantheon of not-so-good Presidents produced by the Electoral College, including those who:

• were totally ineffectual when the country faced a major economic crisis (e.g., Van Buren and Hoover);
• were ineffectual, if not downright harmful, as the country hurtled down the road to civil war (e.g., Buchanan, Pierce, Taylor, and Fillmore);
• ran exceedingly corrupt administrations (e.g., Grant and Harding);
• was a traitor (i.e., Tyler); and
• were so thoroughly mediocre and forgettable that they cannot be named here because the authors of this book cannot recall their names.[383]

Footnotes