Electoral College debate at IW encourages critical thoughts

MT. PLEASANT — Iowa Wesleyan’s honor’s program hosted an Electoral College debate in the University Chapel Wednesday night.

Speakers included Mt. Pleasant Resident Bob Mueller, Policy Director for Iowans for Tax Relief Foundation John Hendrickson, and Associate Professor of History and Director of the honors program Dr. Jeffery Houghtby.

The three argued to reform, retain, and abolish the Electoral College respectively.

To begin the debate, Houghtby surveyed the crowd’s opinions by a raise of hands.

Approximately 25% held the opinion that the Electoral College should be retained, 50% thought it should be reformed, 10% thought it should be abolished and 15% were undecided.

Swing states: Individual votes don’t count and they have disproportionate attention from candidates

“In these states that we call swing states, half of their population don’t have their vote counted,” Mueller argued as a reason reform is needed.

“We need to find a way to get everyone feeling like their vote did count,” he said.

“When you have 35 states in the union that are almost a foregone conclusion, the money, the attention, and the conflict goes to a small number of swing states,” Houghtby agreed.

Hendrickson disagreed and argued that Electoral College is essential for these states to have a voice.

“The senate was created not just for representation, but also to allow the states to have a voice,” Hendrickson said. “The founders made sure the states also made sure the states had a voice in the federal government. This is why they chose a representational government instead of a radical democracy.”

Iowa is one of these swing states.

“I can almost guarantee you, that if we don’t have the Electoral College, Iowa is not going to matter,” Hendrickson said.

Hendrickson compared the density of population in urban settings to the population of rural areas like Iowa.

Winner takes all, does it represent the people?

“We do have a winner take all system, but it reflects the vote and will of the people,” Hendrickson said.

“Right now, I think we have a problem that a lot of people don’t feel like they have seat at the table,” Mueller said.

Mueller argued that if you’re red in a blue state or blue in a red state, your vote won’t count.

According to Houghtby, redistricting has too many issues for the winner take all to adequately represent the population.

“It is less about when to redistrict, but who to exclude,” Houghtby said.

One person, one vote — radical democracy — representative government, which is best?

“One man one vote is not even in the constitution,” Hendrickson said. “The Founding Fathers knew the government needed to be limited, but required checks and balances.”

“With the national popular vote all we do is shift the focus to the large population states,” Mueller argued. “At the national level it would be too difficult to audit the popular vote.

“One reason why I’m against the Electoral College is because we have had consistent long-term support by the American people to elect their presidents by popular support,” Houghtby said.

Constitution, is it alive or dead?

“Alexander Hamilton who supported the Electoral College, I think, was the first to propose abolishing it,” he said. “Jefferson turned against it calling it ‘one of the dangerous plights on our constitution,’ and even James Madison said in 1824 that the small states wouldn’t budge and the framers were getting tired.”

“Even Nixon supported abolishing it in 1971 due to the legitimacy of a president winning the Electoral College but not the popular vote, even though he was elected that way,” Houghtby said.

Hendrickson declared he believed that the constitution was dead and should be used as a framework.

“What does a dead constitution mean?” Houghtby questioned. “Would we still have slavery? Would women be allowed the right to vote? Would 18-year-old students be able to vote?”

“If the constitution doesn’t keep up with the times, we’re dead as a nation, not the constitution,” Houghtby stated.

“We deal with change through prudence,” Hendrickson said. “For example, women getting the right to vote. No one is saying that should be abolished. No one is saying we should return to slavery” “The founders didn’t want radical change. They wanted a slow and deliberate process to elect change.”

Electoral College encourages two party system

“It forces candidates to build broad national support,” Hendrickson argued. “We have some close elections in our history, but it forces a sense of moderation.”

Hendrickson pointed to Trump’s ability to appeal to a great variety of people along with Franklin D. Roosevelt who united those in urban areas, southern democrats, and African Americans.

Mueller argued, “The status quo blocks alternative parties out by the two major parties making the election a binary choice.”

In closing, Houghtby admitted that change was not easily foreseen for this subject.

“The likelihood that anything will change with the Electoral College is not likely,” Houghtby concluded. “It would require a super majority and we don’t see that.”

However, as he wrapped up the debate, he thanked those in attendance and encouraged them to continue these discussions.

“I remember a time when we weren’t as divided as we are now,” he said. “Maybe this new generation might bring us to an agreed compromise where we can have these conversations.”

Through another audience pull consisting of a raise of hands, the percentages only shifted slightly.

One-third fewer raised their hands to retain the Electoral College and appeared to shift in the direction of abolishing it.

Those for reform and undecided appeared to maintain their percentage of audience representation.

Comments: AnnaMarie.Ward@southeastiowaunion.com