By Karen Albrecht
Daily Bruin Contributor
Today’s presidential election may mark the first time in
112 years that the winner of the popular majority loses in the
Electoral College.
Such an outcome would likely mean a reform in the electoral
college system, said Scott James, a professor in political science
department. Â Though these results are a possibility, the
likelihood of such an event is low.
“I think it is a better possibility in this election year
than in most,” James said. “The odds are against
it. It is a pretty rare event.”
To cause these potential results, George W. Bush would need to
win, by much larger margins in his locked up states than Al Gore
does in the states he has locked up, he said.
Gore would also need to win a requisite number of
“swing” states, such as Minnesota and Michigan.
But this chain of events is not a precedent. In 1888, when
Republican Benjamin Harrison defeated Democrat Grover Cleveland,
Harrison won the electoral majority although he lost the popular
vote. Â Similar circumstances also pervaded the 1876 election
of Republican Rutherford B. Hayes.
But if this year’s results resemble those of 1888, James
said the Electoral College may be revised or completely eliminated
because it works against the principles of a democracy.
“It is essentially a relic of a much more aristocratic
period in American history and simply runs counter to the
democratic temper of contemporary America,” James said.
“It persists mostly because it almost never contradicts the
popular verdict.”
This, he said, would require either a constitutional amendment
to formally abolish it, or a collective decision by the states to
alter the means of awarding electoral votes ““ from the
current winner-take-all system to proportional allocation.
Some students also see the futility of the U.S.’s way of
selecting a president.
The current electoral college system is in need of revision,
said Kyle Beckley, a third-year political science and philosophy
student. He said either proportional allocation of electoral votes
should be instigated or the electoral states should be
redefined.
“The current winner-take-all method is ridiculous,”
Beckley said. Â “The Electoral College demonstrates how
poorly the founders thought of the American public. Hamilton,
for example, referred to the people as “˜The Great
Beast.'”
The Electoral College was designed to keep voters from electing
a president for the wrong reasons, and James said retaining it
gives candidates incentive to campaign in smaller states.
Small margins of victory in the popular vote usually generate
larger Electoral College victories. This circumstance, James
said, “can make it a little easier for a new president to
claim a mandate to lead the country.”
A repeat of the 1888 election, Beckley agreed, could
significantly weaken the perception of the president because he
would not have a mandate.
“It would strike fear into people if this happened,
because they would realize it is not a direct democracy,”
said Joel Schwartz, a second-year psychology student.
The election of 1824 saw no candidate receive an electoral
majority, although Andrew Jackson had a significant lead over John
Q. Adams. Â The decision went to the House of Representatives
for a final resolution, where Adams was declared president.
Â
An unlikely tie in electoral votes between Bush and Gore could
require the presidential election to be decided by Congress. The
president would be determined by the House of Representatives, with
each state casting one vote while the vice presidential election
would go to the Senate.
 Electoral Anomalies
1888: Though Grover Cleveland won the poular
election by 90,728 votes, Benjamin Harrison secured the presidency
with a majority of the Electoral College. 1824: No
candidate in the election of 1824 won either a popular or Electoral
College victory, so the eventual winner, John Q. Adams, was decided
by a vote in the U.S. House of Representatives. Original
graphic by JACOB LIAO/Daily Bruin Web adaptation by STEPHEN
WONG