By Paul Mills
With even Donald Trump sometimes advocating electoral college reform, it’s likely that this school’s accreditation may be seriously challenged when Congress matriculates next year.
It’s now well known that Maine stands out in the present system for being the only state this year expected to split its electoral votes, something not done any place since Nebraska did so eight years ago even though it was once a more common phenomenon in the nation’s early history. (Maine did so, for example, in 1828.)
What’s not so well known is the role that both our U.S. senators in the 1960s and early ’70s, Margaret Chase Smith and Edmund Muskie, played championing the most significant effort ever to overthrow the system. In 1969, with bipartisan support including the backing of newly-elected President Richard Nixon, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 338 to 70 to pass a constitutional amendment shutting down the electoral college and substituting a nationwide popular vote.
The next year, a majority of U.S. senators also supported the plan but it failed to muster the two-thirds vote required to cut off a filibustering opposition.
Nevertheless, voting on what was then known as the Bayh Celler or “Celler” bill was the closest the United States has ever come to enacting a popular vote system.
Interest at this time was triggered by the wrenching 1968 election, the last time any third party presidential candidate won votes in the electoral college. By carrying electoral votes of five states Alabama’s George Wallace’s strength pointed up a potential malfunctioning of the system. That’s because by posing the threat of depriving the two major nominees, Nixon and Hubert Humphrey, of a majority of electoral college votes, he exposed an obscure but ominous quirk in the way such elections are required to be handled. In such an instance, the House of Representatives, with each state entitled to cast only a single vote, would choose the president. The senate would then choose the vice president. It’s a process that was seen as not only less democratic than the electoral college but also posed the potential of choosing a president and vice president who might be diametrically incompatible.
Against this backdrop both of Maine’s U.S. senators were prominent advocates of revamping the system. The state’s senior senator, Republican Margaret Chase Smith had already for many years been proposing a popular vote election. Though she supported the Celler amendment, her own bill would have gone a step further by doing away with the political convention and caucus system and instead substituting a national primary as the means by which nominees are chosen. Moreover, her proposal included a requirement of run-offs whenever either a primary or general election failed to give a winning candidate a majority. (Though the Celler bill did not require a national primary it would have required run-offs any time a general election candidate failed to capture even 40 percent of the vote.)
Smith’s Democratic counterpart, Sen. Edmund Muskie, who had in the 1968 election been Humphrey’s vice-presidential running mate, also ardently supported a popular vote system. In his 1969 remarks before the Senate Judiciary Committee Muskie called attention to the faithless North Carolina elector who had just voted for George Wallace instead of the state’s popular vote winner, Richard Nixon. He also recited the 1960 actions of some electors from Alabama and Oklahoma to hijack the process in attempting to prevail upon their colleagues to withhold votes from John Kennedy and Richard Nixon. This was an attempt to extract concessions from them favorable to conservative causes as a condition for their support.
Muskie also asserted that the electoral college failed to take into consideration the evolution of America from a country of separate, sovereign states into a cohesive national government and then went on to observe that “The President seeks and derives his support from the nation as a whole, not from one state at a time.”
What’s indeed a bit remarkable about the advocacy of both of Maine’s U.S. senators then is that it was likely against the narrower interests of their own constituents. Because even small states like Maine have a guaranteed threshold of electoral votes the state for more than a century had a proportionately greater clout in presidential elections than it would have under a direct election. Today, for example, it’s unlikely that Donald Trump would have campaigned five times here had it not been for our skewed influence.
There are also broader policy implications for Maine’s place at the national bargaining table. The difference in voting power between Maine and California being even more pronounced than it was a half century ago is probably a reason we have not seen our more recent emissaries to Washington push for the changes Smith and Muskie once advocated though even in their time there was a similar risk. Maine senators who vote for a straight popular vote system might thus be accused of throwing Bath Iron Works and Portsmouth Kittery under the bus.
It’s perhaps a tribute to the stature and influence of both Smith and Muskie or for that matter Maine’s own attributes as a state that neither perceived the prospect of losing the benefits of federal investments in the state as a consideration in their support of a system that might blunt the state’s leverage.
The outcome of the today’s proposals is of course a bit problematic even if they do win the renewed support of a President Trump, but it is intriguing that those pursuing them will be walking in footsteps that have somewhat unlikely origins in a state the size of Maine.
Paul Mills is a Farmington attorney well known for his analyses and historical understanding of public affairs in Maine. He can be reached by e-mail at pmills@myfairpoint.net.
How is the one Representative chosen from each state in the event there is not a 270 winner?
The congressional delegation determines how that vote is cast. If a state’s congressional delegation is evenly split between parties, and a decision cannot be made, that state wouldn’t have a vote. In the 1800 election between Burr and Jefferson, Maryland and Vermont deadlocked in the first two ballots, and weren’t able to cast a vote.
How could one not LOVE reading Paul Mills work? His understanding and analysis of how or government functions inspires me to read and learn even more about it. Thank you Mr. Mills!
Thank you for such a thorough history of Maine’s once active concern regarding Electoral College reform!
I hope your full summary Iof Maine’s still recent assessment of the Electoral College is being published and broadcast across the state as I write.
I remember the ongoing discussions at the State House, but as issues and proponents moved on and few other states seemed to have a strong core of proponents the issue faded from active consideration in those halls and in the Governor’s office. it is a shame that it is only revived when a national concern prompts a review of the Electoral College which of course, means that it is already too late to address the immediate issue,
If there were to be a state by state with a national committee of state representatives (established and funded)
to begin to address the issue from all prospectives, then the slow, but justified full and publicly open consideration could begin, separate from any one sided advocacy for or against a particular candidate.
A very valuable historical perspective. Thanks for posting it.
I think not only would Trump not have come here 5 times, but also, if we get rid of the electoral college, Maine will never see a presidential candidate again. We just don’t have the population centers necessary for a candidate to garner the votes to win a national election. (Not sure if anyone cares about that or not) This was pointed out by our state rep elect, Lance Harvell, in a floor speech he gave when the state legislature was considering a vote on a bill related to this a few years ago. The bill was voted down, rather decidedly if I remember correctly. Lance was serving as the rep for district 89 at the time.
I am so delighted when Paul Mills has a column! His articles are always interesting, timely and include fascinating information about Maine’s history. Thank you
I’m wondering what Paul would suggest for the future. It’s a real “on the one hand/on the other hand” situation for less populated states. I wonder what other options we have.
The vote counts are all ready iffy, coming from both sides, with electronic voting machines with no paper ballot backup, stuffed ballot boxes, crowded polling places, registration irregularities, gerrymandering. Perhaps a non-partisan group could sit down and come up with some suggestions for the future.
Always have admired both Margaret Chase Smith and Edmund Muskie and there they are (were) supporting a popular vote election. Yes! Especially like this statement : Muskie also asserted that the electoral college failed to take into consideration the evolution of America from a country of separate, sovereign states into a cohesive national government and then went on to observe that “The President seeks and derives his support from the nation as a whole, not from one state at a time.” Amen to that. With the access people have all over the country to TV news broadcasts and internet sites, there’s no excuse for the Electoral College any more ( not sure there ever was, actually!). Every vote should count or we are not a democracy!
Andy B, actually, you have it backwards: the only reason Trump visited Maine was because we *divide* our electoral votes. If we were a “winner take all” state, he would have had much less incentive to come, because he had almost no chance of any electoral votes. It’s only by splitting our vote did we make it so a candidate might actually visit or care about our issues.
Lance was giving voice to the traditional argument, but the traditional argument is wrong. It’s not about big states vs. small ones, its about swing states vs. safe states. No one visits California, which is large, but no one visits Wyoming either (the least populated state). Both states are “safe”, and their electoral votes are all going to the party that holds strong majorities there. Ohio and Michigan, however, get tons of traffic, not because of their size, but because they are swing states, and gaining just a tiny percentage more of the votes could net a candidate a large number of electoral votes.
In a popular vote system, candidates can and will go anywhere they think they can find voters. If there are rural contingents whose votes are up for grabs, candidates will go there, just like Trump came here because our second district’s vote was in play. Put the whole country in play, and instead of deciding how to win a few arbitrary states, candidates can (and will) go anywhere that might get them votes.
While any attempt to change the system now will look partisan, it’s unsustainable to have the 2nd place finisher winning elections. Civics arguments aside, this is now twice in 5 elections that the “loser” won. It erodes faith in our democracy to keep seeing the popular vote winner losing, and to keep getting federal governments elected by a minority.
You hit the nail on the head , the minorites run this country EVERYWHERE,NOT JUST THE PRESIDENCY,THAT IS HALF OF WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS COUNTRY!!!!!
“When our side wins democracy happens. When that bunch over there wins democracy fails.” At this time the demand for Electoral College abolition or negation comes almost entirely from Democrats. If Trump Tower’s Gold-tipped Gargoyle had won the pop vote and lost the collegiate count the Republicans would be complaining.
Majority rule in the literal sense is not a possibility unless you have a dictator who controls the vote-count. About 61% of registered voters turned up for the Kennedy-Nixon contest. JFK won half those votes plus ca. 100,000. He is remembered as “the choice of the American people.” This is true only if we add 100% of non-voters to the winner. This fiction is OK with me. It’s a useful for transferring power without bloodshed. A functional democracy must rely in part on a more or less honest vote counting, in part on accepting the rules of the game. Acceptance is more important than logical validity.