For panicking Democrats, the Electoral College may finally be an asset

Since President Biden’s poor debate debate performance on June 27, Democrats have been openly panicking and discussing his replacement at the top of the ticket on November’s ballot. Many seek a more persistently lucid candidate — names mentioned include Vice President Kamala Harris and California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D). 

So far, Biden has resisted stepping aside, asserting that one bad night shouldn’t disqualify him from running for reelection. Others point to fast-approaching ballot access deadlines as good reasons to avoid changing horses mid-stream. Their fear: If Biden steps aside but there’s no single replacement candidate yet, the Democratic presidential line in several states will be essentially blank.

In the worst case scenario for Democrats, Biden will be their candidate but will become incapacitated in some fashion between ballot finalization and the election. 

Ironically, Democrats can put their minds at ease — and effectively refute Republican claims of illegal shenanigans — by fully embracing the opportunities afforded them by the institution the Constitution lays out for presidential elections: the Electoral College. 

Such an embrace might seem fanciful after the Democrats’ quarter-century war on the Electoral College, which began in earnest after the contested 2000 election. Then-Senator-elect Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) called for the Electoral College’s abolition three days after Election Day that November. She reiterated her position after the 2016 election, when she herself lost in the Electoral College while receiving more individual votes nationwide.

Other prominent Democrats, from Al Gore to Pete Buttiegieg, have made their disdain for the system known. Democratic voters also don’t like it.

But hear me out.

Let’s say Biden’s name is on the ballot in all 50 states and Washington, D.C., but he — voluntarily or otherwise — agrees that he’s not up to serving a second term. Most politicos today seem to think that would nuke Democrats’ chances, because people will vote for Biden in November, and he can’t be replaced. Game, set, match for Donald Trump, right?

Wrong. No one in the U.S. votes for a candidate to be president. Americans in all 50 states and the District of Columbia vote for slates of electors, who in turn (usually) vote for the candidate they pledge to vote for.

Democrats can forge ahead with Biden. If he becomes unable to run at any point — even if it’s as late as Halloween — all Democrats need to do is direct their slates of electors to vote for someone else when they meet in each sate capital on Dec. 15. It could be Harris, Newsom or anyone else the party agrees on.

This elector-swap approach benefits Democrats in numerous other ways. The prospect of a raucous open convention in Chicago should send Democrats running for any alternative. It allows Biden, Democrats’ consistently best-polling challenger to Trump, to stay in the race longer.

With much of the vote already in weeks before Election Day due to early voting, Democrats can bank votes with their best candidate longer, switching only when absolutely necessary — potentially after the election, but before Dec. 15.

To be sure, some states’ laws require the slate of electors to vote for the specific candidate to whom they are pledged. But the penalties for an elector not voting his or her pledge lack teeth. Most states, such as Arizona or Michigan, simply replace an elector who violates his or her pledge with another person. If every Democrat in the state simply agrees to vote for the party’s alternative to Biden, the swap will render the penalty a nullity.

What’s more, there’s a direct historical analogue to the situation Democrats find themselves in today. In the waning weeks of the 1912 presidential campaign, Republican vice presidential nominee James Sherman passed away. Republican Party officials simply directed Republican electors to vote for Nicholas Butler for vice president. They voted for Butler, whose name had appeared on no state’s ballot, without issue.

For Democrats to implement the plan, it would require something they’ve been loath to do since the 2000 election: Admit that the Electoral College system has merit. Ironically, their preferred system — direct popular election — would put them in a far tighter bind than they are in now. Direct election would limit them to a potentially unavailable Biden or Harris, the only two names on state ballots.

The Electoral College, in contrast, gives Democrats vastly more freedom to choose a youthful, energetic and appealing alternative candidate at the time that works best for them. 

James Sieja is associate professor of government at St. Lawrence University in Canton, N.Y.