Like it or hate, the electoral college isn’t the failure some might make it out to be. The electoral college is flexible and does the job.
First, it has nothing to do with “wasted votes” like some think….
Any election has “winners” and “losers.” That’s what an “election” is–it’s a choice. And people choose what they think is “best.” So elections produce “winners” and “losers.” But of course elections can serve different purposes. An “election” might mean that more than just a politician is the “loser.” A “Hutu” winner might mean a lot “Tutsis” lose everything.
So what’s the point of our elections? What’s the point of government? Is government about people getting what they want? Are people losers who have wasted their vote if they don’t get what they want?
I don’t doubt that if we want what’s good and right and we don’t win, that we very much can be “losers.” But constitutional government is supposed to mean that we don’t have “real” losers whose votes are worthless. Constitutional government means people don’t lose their lives, or their property, to the “winners.” And regular elections are part of the way we ensure we don’t have “real losers” and “winners” like Hitlers or Hutus.
Constitutional elections are not one-shot deals. Regular elections means there’s a dependence of government policy on public opinion. Regular elections mean we have a history to review, and a future to anticipate.
Great issues are not decided over night. Abortion has not been decided with one or two elections, or with one or two Supreme Court decisions. Neither has gun control, affirmative action, capital punishment, etc.
Responsible and intelligent people, and ambitious ones, look at the past, and think ahead. That’s good for constitutional government. And healthy elections, with wide margins or narrow margins, send signals. They signal support or opposition for policies. They signal growing or decreasing support for policies, for coalitions. Politicians understand these signals. Politicians may try to work around them with slick ads, but they must deal with them as the public debates abortion, gun control, capital punishment….
So, what about the electoral college? Is there something wrong with it? Does it sever a dependence on the people? Does it produce a decision? Is it likely to produce a good choice? Is it undemocratic?
If democracy only means a majority exercises power, then we can say the electoral college is undemocratic. That, however, doesn’t say much. The electoral college wasn’t designed for mob “rule.”
Remember Florida in 2000? Remember the “protests” as officials examined chads? So, suppose we had a close national election without the electoral college….. Oh yeah, suppose we magnify a couple of Florida counties and have every county like that in the country. Good grief. If we want constitutional government, we want orderly, rational, procedures. Could a popular majority election be conducted? Oh, I suppose, but why increase the likelihood of a spectacle?
And if we have a popular majority rule for choosing the president, we would have to address some things. There’s always third parties and frequently past winners have lacked a “majority” of the popular vote. So if we stick with a majority rule, and not just plurality rule, then we have more complications and we would have to have rules about runoff elections….
But the electoral college avoids that trouble, and it’s flexible. We don’t have to have “wasted” votes–you know, those votes for a candidate who could lose a state by a percent or two but get no electoral votes. Citizens of the states choose how to assign the electoral votes. A state doesn’t have to be winner-take-all. The people can divide up their electoral votes proportionately and make the electoral college vote look more like the popular vote–if the people wanted that.
The Constitution–and the electoral college–can stand the criticism of the left and their complaints about the abstract “capitalist system” all they want. The criticism doesn’t have substance when examined closely. Tearing down the Constitution in favor of an “international” order won’t produce a more just world.
So have at it Denis….. and whoever else would like to chime in.
Beau,
I’ve had this same discussion with these internet political scientists for 2 presidential elections.
They still won’t “get it”.
My analogy was always me running for president in a popular vote only election.
I visit: NYC, Miami, Atlanta, Detroit, LA, Houston, southern Florida.
Nobody else would see me. No reason to. I just hit 70% of the population and spent less money. The only way to make that an even less intelligent idea is to make it legal for me to buy votes.
I think the problem, honestly, is ignorance. Do you know how difficult it is to find a reasonable explanation of the way the electoral college works? Plus, since the media likes to sensationalize popular vote numbers, it makes people who haven’t had the EC explained all frantic, and gives them the room to complain (because, after all, if we know the popular vote numbers, why not go with them?)
Honestly, from a technological standpoint, the more we shift to electronic cheating machines, the happier I am that it’s not a popular vote.
Thunderous applause! Great answer, Beau.
Hey Tony,
Glad you’re out of the hospital and “about.”
Yeah, it’s hard for some to see that a nation is more than the vanguard and the urban proletariat…. Similarly I suppose people have trouble understanding that a nation requires a mix of people; it’s not as though the “rich” could live without the “poor” or the “poor” without the “rich”; or the urban without the rural etc. “Constituting” a nation isn’t just a matter of holding an election; often it does involve some compromise. There was compromise with the Constitution and the electoral college, and there would be compromise with the alternatives. And I don’t think the alternatives are better.
Beth, heh. “cheating machines”
Thanks Barb, but let’s see what Denis says….
To further simplify and put it in Denis’ context…he says his vote doesn’t count because he lives in “McCain Country.” If the boundaries of “McCain Country” were not just the state he lives in, hence nullifying his vote at that level, but instead the entire United States (i.e. a strictly popular vote), how would his vote count any more? It would still be nullified if he voted for the loser. So, I think what Denis is really suggesting is that if 47% of the people vote for Obama and 53% for McCain, then Obama should rule 47% of the time and McCain 53% of the time.
Hey Gwynne,
Maybe you’re on to something here. But why split the time? Please almost everybody and have co-presidents. Wouldn’t that make politics more fun to watch?
Or maybe we should split the people…those who vote for Obama might prefer to live in a separate commune.
I think I’ve been misquoted or taken out of context, which is a popular thing for the media to do these days. Beau, I gave up reading after three paragraphs.
I stand by what I said and believe. And yes, it would be better for the country and everyone involved if the candidates only had to visit NYC, Miami, Atlanta, Detroit, LA, Houston, and southern Florida. Save a lot of money and reach far more people than the present system, where candidates spend 75% of their funds in five or six small key battle ground states that contain less then 10% of the U.S. population and determine the entire election.
If you think that’s better than just making every vote count equally, be my guest.
Hey Denis,
I tried not to take anything out of context, but merely to respond to your statement that “we are stuck with the antiquated Electoral College where my vote means nothing in my state.”
But like Tony commented, some form of direct popular election would mean you’d be ignored in SC. So if your make your state more “competitive” you’re ahead with the “antiquated” system….
But really the question is about the point of the election. Elections can serve different purposes. And I’m not sure why I should care if not everyone feels like their vote “means” something. I’m more interested in a process that has a reasonable likelihood of producing a decision for a qualified person to lead the country.