Killing Electoral College would invite Trump, future presidents to rig their reelections Democrats don't trust Donald Trump. So why would they want to give him and future presidents more power over their own reelections and who succeeds them?

Tara Ross | Opinion contributor

Show Caption Hide Caption Electoral College vs. the popular vote, explained President Trump and President George W. Bush won the electoral vote during the election, but not the popular vote. How does the electoral college work?

“I care not who casts the votes of a nation, provided I can count them,” a New York Times editorial quipped in 1880. The editorial was poking fun at imperialism. Nevertheless, the old quote strikes at the heart of a new debate about the Electoral College — to say nothing of recent news headlines.

Everyone seems pretty certain that one or the other political party is interfering in U.S. presidential elections.

In the midst of so much turmoil and distrust, why would some Americans want to give even more power over elections to the federal government? Yet Electoral College opponents advocate for it, seemingly without realizing what they are doing.

Make no mistake: If the Electoral College is eliminated, the powers of incumbent presidents and their administrations will be vastly increased.

Don't hand power to incumbents

Democrats who are working to end the Electoral College should stop and think about that statement again: They do not trust Donald Trump. Yet they are working to give him more power over his own reelection and the election of his successor.

The Electoral College is, at its heart, a decentralized, state-by-state presidential election process. States determine the logistics of Election Day, access to the ballot, recounts and other, similar issues. Meanwhile, the federal government must take a back seat because the Constitution gives the national government only a limited role to play at election time.

Notably, while the Constitution grants Congress some authority in elections, the executive branch is left out in the cold: Presidents have no direct power over their own reelections.

Consider how things would change if the country were to eliminate the Electoral College and move to a single, national presidential election instead. A federal government that once played a secondary role would now sit in the driver’s seat. All election matters would be subject to federal control. Such changes would be necessary because of the altered nature of the election: Instead of 51 statewide election pools, in which each state and Washington, D.C., selects its own electors, American voters would all be thrown into a single national election pool.

Losing their voice: Rural Americans would be serfs if we abolished Electoral College

A new federal election code and bureaucracy would be needed to ensure that voters are being treated equally, even across state lines. It is easy to imagine a new Department of Elections to oversee the administration of the federal election code and a president appointing someone to run it. Presidents who chose to run for a second term would enjoy a nice luxury: The person in charge of their reelection would also be a person beholden to them for a job as secretary of Elections.

Why make it easy to rig elections?

Americans are already worried that institutions such as the FBI or the State Department are being used inappropriately. Perhaps they are, and such abuse of our institutions should be addressed. Yet how much easier would it be for an incumbent class of federal officials to legally influence election outcomes if a Department of Elections and a U.S. Election Code were in charge of every aspect of presidential elections?

How fortunate that the Founders created something different, ensuring that checks and balances exist even within our presidential election system. No incumbent has too much authority over his own reelection. He can’t rig the system by pushing for federal regulations that tip the scales in his own favor.

An opposing view: We can't let the Founders' Electoral College, Senate trade-offs distort democracy forever

This is a healthy state of affairs.

Electoral College opponents blast the system as outdated, archaic and unnecessary, but their criticisms reflect a misunderstanding of the Founders’ objectives as they drafted our Constitution.

The Founders sought to create a constitutional structure that would allow Americans to be self-governing, despite the imperfections of human nature. They knew that people can be selfish, greedy and too ambitious. They knew that power corrupts. Their constitutional system of checks and balances — including the state-by-state presidential election process — was designed to protect against these human flaws.

Efforts to eliminate the Electoral College fly in the face of this history. They would place unchecked power in the hands of a few.

Americans deserve better.

Tara Ross is a retired lawyer and the author of several books about the Electoral College, including "Why We Need the Electoral College." Follow her on Twitter: @TaraRoss