Maryland took the bold, and in my opinion long over due, step today of offering to more or less withdraw from the Electoral College. If enough states pass similar laws tying their electoral votes to the popular vote, and not the vote in their state, so that the requisite 270 electoral votes for winning the election hinge on the popular vote than Maryland's law takes effect. A similar bill is already in Hawaii's legislature and Arnold vetoed a bill easily passed by the CA legislature, which will likely be passed again once he leaves office. I for one would love to see the electoral college scrapped. It is an out of date system that needs to be replaced by one that makes everyone's vote equal. One man one vote is horribly undermined when states with less than 500,000 people get 3 electoral votes amongst them, but states with 1.8 million people only get 5. This means that there is 1 electoral vote per 166k people in Wyoming whereas West Virginia only has 1 electoral vote per 360k people.
This is the antithesis of democracy. I understand that this change means that politician's will spend more time in urban centers than in rural areas. This seems horribly unfair to a large segment of the population as their issues will not be addressed as much or given the appropriate amount of importance. On the other hand, is it fair to the cities right now that they receive no attention? How many ads are run for the Presidential race in New York, Boston, Washington DC, Los Angeles, Austin, Houston etc.? How often do the Presidential contenders stop by to make speeches? Its simply not worth it to them. It costs so much to run ads to reach all of these people and there is little point to it since we all know which way these states will go in November. The current system encourages politicians to ignore these areas. Further, it can't be helping areas like say, Wyoming, where they don't get all that much attention anyway because we all know that Wyoming will vote Republican in 2008 and if they don't then the Democrat has so easily won that the matter is irrelevant anyway. I hope that other state's will be bold enough to take this action. It is time we shifted to the system that most accurately represents the will of the American people, and encourages ALL citizens to vote, not just those that happen to live in swing states.
Madison
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Just want to clarify here - MD law only goes into effect after states possessing 270 electoral votes have also passed the same law.
I couldn't agree more with Madison. So many people don't even vote because they know that their vote won't count. Take Wisconsin for instance, I'm sure there are many Democrats there who just don't even bother. Voter apathy is a pressing problem and getting rid of the electoral college would certainly be a step in the right direction.
Yes, MD law is only in effect when enough states have passed a similar law so that the election will turn solely upon the popular vote. Put differently, at present the law is not in effect because the election will not turn solely upon the popular vote.
Madison
Wisconsin is a weird example to use, as it's one of the swingingest states in the country (both Gore and Kerry beat Bush by less than a one half of one percent margin). But I strongly agree with the post. The electoral college is a relic that should go for a host of reasons (throwing elections to the House, what happens if a candidate dies, etc.) but its anti-democratic nature is surely a key one.
I will be the voice of dissent and state my disagreement that the electoral college should be replaced. I agree that the electors themselves should be replaced by automatic votes, but that is the only change.
I think the argument to change the electoral system to a direct election is extremely short sighted and assumes that the stability that the electoral system provides would remain in a direct election environment.
My primary argument in favor of the electoral system is that it severely increases the barriers to entry for candidates to enter Presidential contension. If your argument is that you want to see those barriers to entry lowered - then argue away. However, the Presidency is an institution that should warrant an extremely high barrier to entry.
I think the greatest argument in favor of the electoral system was argued in by FEC director just after the 2000 election. It follows that the electoral college has succeeded in "ensuring that the President of the United States has both sufficient popular support to govern and that his popular support is sufficiently distributed throughout the country to enable him to govern effectively."
Does a direct election system create better dynamics for such dispersion? No. It would only further incentivize candidates with more radical or reactionary (it could work from either side of the political spectrum) positions to set up shop in population centers and focus on single issues that rouse emotion ratehr than thought.
This problem that is purported to be fixed by a direct elected system would only be magnified.
The problem right now is not due to the electoral sytem itself, but due to the way that parties have decided to align themselves (in an illogical fashion). On both sides of the isle you have interest groups banded together in party affiliations that do not make sense. Instead of advocating for a massive overhaul of an electoral system that has worked since the inception of the republic, perhaps we should advocate for a realignment of our political parties (something that often has and likely will happen naturally every 40-50 years or so).
Robert you really don't explain why you think a popular vote would produce an unpopular president. Presuming Duverger's law holds (and it's likely to) that as long as we have first past the post and single-member districts we should remain a two party system. And if we remain a two party system, well the winner of a two party race is going to have popular support. So ... what's the problem?
The electoral college is a more likely mechanism to divide the country and give power to extreme minorities (remember George Wallace's plan in 1968 to win a few states and throw the election to the House).
Thats not my point at all - just the opposite, that a direct elect system is more likely to produce a very popular more radical/reactionary President and polarize the political spectrum further than it would be otherwise. Instead of campaigning broadly it incentivizes Presidential candidates to turnout votes on very focused issues that appeal to pashion (imagine Karl Rove type tactics from the 2004 election applied on a national level, rather than a state level).
Why would a party be incentivized to have a wide platform that incorporates every state in the Union when they can just push one issue extraordinarily hard, in very narrow population centers, and get elected?
Direct elect would encourage the type of tyranny by majority possibilities that the electoral college was created to help prevent.
As a side effect, this would encourage more focused one issue parties to radicalize and mobilize simply to win the Presidency. If one of these parties (say a wealthy millionaire ala Ross Perot.... or maybe today George Soros), won the Presidency, they could effectively start their own party right then and there.
Even given your scenario with a George Wallace type situation, wouldn't a direct elect system be more susceptible to such doubt? What if you have three candidates who split the vote 33%, 33% 34%.... or even 43%,37%,20% (1992). What situation would throw a direct election into the House?
The problems you bring up there are even worse in a direct elect system.
Finally, to address Duverger. This is not a causal theory at all - it is an observational theory with weak causal linkages. And guess what, many factors of modern society have changed since the 1940s when Duverger came up with his theory (in the way we advertise, the flow of information, and mass communication).
Furthermore, my lense is much broader than the lense you are using to apply Durverger's theory. Durverger himself mentions that in the short term changing an electoral system is unlikely to effect party alignment. However, in the long term (say 40-50 years until a realignment in the parties, or a generation or two) the form of the electoral system has a much greater impact.
Finally, Durverger's theory has proven less stable as of late than it might have once seemed (See England and its former colonies - systems where you think Duverger's law would reign even more supreme since more power is focused in the Parliament). Finally, Durverger's theory was born out of a systems where the method of election of Congress/Parliament (state/local) was semi-closely (or in the case of Parliamentary system, completely tied) to the Presidential/PM electoral system. By changing to a direct elect for President you would be migrating from elections tied to states (senate votes + congressional votes = State votes for election) to elections tied to total population. Durverger's law would be missing a major leg of its key assumptions based on its observational sample.
Dude lots of theory. Everyone hates it when the President didn't win both the popular majority and the electoral college. We have no idea who would of won in 2000 had we relied on a popular election. Has anyone done a study that has effectively determined if the minority or majority party in non-swing states are more likely to stay home. I personally would prefer a combination of the two systems. Rather than every state give all of its electoral votes to one party, they should devide their votes based on the percentage of the vote that goes to each party. Therefore every state has a few electoral votes in play, but no state has say 25 (Florida). We then balance some of the worries of both sides. Although a vote in Wyoming would be worth more than a vote in West Virginia no state would be marginalized in the process. With each State providing only a difference of a few electoral votes Presidential candidates will have to campaign everywhere. The voters in non-swing state's will not be marginalized because the ratio of votes would matter. The President wouldn't be able to win by only getting urban centers or by focusing on the panhandle of florida. It also ensures that the Preseident has popular support throught the Country.
I'm afraid, as one might imagine, that I have to disagree with Robert on a number of points. First, there is little reason to believe that there is some issue that so unites urban centers that exploitation of that issue could get a candidate elected singlehandedly.
Secondly, if such issues existed than one would imagine that there is an issue that a Democrat or Republican could use to win over the swing states. Surely, if the urban centers are so susceptible to this strategy some issue, or issues, exist which could tip swing states. The nominees for each party should thus simply stake out that position(s) and harp on it and only it in the relevant states. This would permit them to sweep the swing states, and absent total ineptitude, hold the core states. However, this does not happen because it is not so simple. Further, there is nothing to stop both or all candidates from co-opting the position as their own (Clinton's triangulation strategy comes to mind on the general level and stem cell research, Bush's immigration plan and Clinton's welfare reform on the specific level), thus undermining the ability of any candidate to effectively exploit it by uniting both parties under its banner.
Thirdly, while using the popular vote might make life a little easier upon independent candidates, the fact remains that those outside the major parties will not have access to their immense political machine. Without the fundraising, voter contact, inherent legitimacy, and get out the vote operations, the 3rd party candidates will still be rendered less significant. Especially since the primary process tends to also work as a vetting process exposing weakenesses and hardening candidates.
Ross Perot may have taken 19% of the vote, but exit polling showed he pulled it rather evenly from both Clinton and Bush with a large segment of support coming from people who otherwise would have stayed home. I think the likelihood of so dividing the country to the point where only radicals garner enough support is unlikely. This is especially true when you consider how unlikely it is that someone who lost their parties primary would decide to run in the general, knowing full well that they couldn't win since they would split\lose the base (please no one cite Lieberman to be contrary since we all know the Republican Presidential candidate will never simply throw in their hat and allow an independent to essentially be the Republican candidate). There are still enough effective barriers in my opinion that protecting the will of the people is more important than one more artificial barrier. Radicals on either side will only split apart the radical vote, with most (hopefully) learning from the Nader debacle in 2000 and casting their vote for someone who can actually win.
Madison
Again, the status quo and short term pervades the arguments that are being raised to support moving to a direct election. When changing an electoral system that has been effective at securing the peaceful transferral of power in the United States for over 200 years, you need to take such a forward looking perspective of what the next 200 years might hold (not to fix a transitory problem such as the current situation where there is a nearly evenly divided electorate on the two major parties).
Would the same get out the vote "machine" be necessary to grab the Presidency in a direct elect system? Probably not, with today's ability to reach millions of people via mass communication and the internet.
The one message concept might have worked in the last two cycles because of the odd political environment that has arisen, but it likely won't work tomorrow. In a direct elect mode, it could work much for effectively for all future elections.
Lets say you were a Wallace and wanted to rile up an entire segment of the country do to stereotypes, racism, hatred of a particular religion, or some other bigotry, would that work in today's electoral system, where you have to broaden your appeal to win enough electoral votes? No. Would it work in a 3 candidate race where a 35% plurality might win the Presidency? Absolutely.
Get out the vote will be that important even outside of the electoral college. Especially as the percentage required decreases. The major parties will always retain a huge advantage in this area, no matter how far out in time you go, because they will have their machine in place for other offices. Something that a third party will have difficulty gaining traction in. The third party will especially suffer when it comes to fundraising.
Candidates have to prove viability to raise money. This is exceedingly difficult for any third party candidate. Look at Nader merely 4 years later. He ran again, Bush was not particularly popular, nor was Kerry. However, he failed to raise money and get votes. Despite having received a substantial part of the vote in 2000 he disappeared in 2004. Further, both in 2000 and 2004 he lacked an effective ability to get out the message that he needed at least 15% of the vote so his party could receive federal matching funds in the next election. How many people knew that this was a major part of his candidacy? How many would have voted for him had they known that if he could reach a mere 15% their vote would not "be a waste?"
The obstacles to third parties do not disappear as time goes out. I could invert your argument about Wallace, and in fact think it is more damning for the electoral college. His segregationist attitude could win over a small section of the country where only a third of the vote is needed (assuming 3 parties there) and act as a spoiler to throw the election to the House. Perhaps he could act as a spoiler in this manner solely to get the 15% of the vote for funding. Maybe he could be the compromise choice so that neither side had to elect the other. Perhaps (and here is the particularly damning situation) he could win a 1\3 of the vote in .5 the country getting elected despite being horribly unpopular elsewhere. In this scenario a mere 1\6 of the vote is truly needed to be elected if a 3rd party gains traction in enough states. Less if they win in places like Wyoming.
There are doomsday scenarios in both the electoral college and outside of it. However, the reality is, the American people generally loathe change. A third party will have huge amounts of difficulty gaining traction no matter what their stance. They will lose support as radicals since they went outside the parties. One's vote will be "wasted" on them. You can say what about 50 years later? However, if year after year no one votes for them b\c it would be a "waste" then it doesn't matter how far out you go. Plus, the big donors and corporations have a vested interest in the established parties that also will not wane. Is it possible that the popular vote system could cause problems, sure, but I think it highly unlikely. In my opinion the electoral college is an unnecessary safeguard that only serves to thwart the will of the people.
Everything I learned in what feels like a million poli sci classes suggests Madison's point about triangulation is correct. In a first past the system with one district (the entire country) the winner is most likely to be the candidate that runs to the center. Will that always be the case? No, it depends on the nature of the issues for example. But that's the very great likelihood. And Robert if you are so worried about a rabid minority taking hold, design a system that requires a majority (a run-off) instead of a plurality, or a large plurality (say you can win with under 50%, but if the leader has less than 40% then you have a run-off). It's quite easy to design systems that will make it hard for a rabid minority to somehow win - but it's clear that the current electoral college is not one of them, so if one believes in the person who has the most nationwide support becoming president, the electoral college needs to be ended.
Oh and as to Jefferson's - "We have no idea who would of won in 2000 had we relied on a popular election." Uh, of course we do. Gore beat Bush by far more than 500,000 votes nationwide. That's another problem with the college. It's a lot easier to alert (or play with) the results of small elections (with smaller margins of victory) than it is a big election that doesn't have a single overseeing entity running it.
"Wasted" vote is merely a perception. A popular third candidate would be able to legitimate themselves by the fact that their followers would know that all he/she has to do is win votes - not win states, a much easier task.
It is short sighted/tunnel vision thinking, like assuming that the status quo would have remained the same in 2000 under a direct election vs. electoral system (i.e. Gore might have lost the popular vote if the strategy was attuned to that framework, or Gore might have blown out Bush - who knows, because some of the biggest assumptions around the election would have changed - easily swinging a couple million if not more votes in either direction - or increasing/decreasing voter turnout, etc), that calls for such a radical change in the way we elect the President.
Political theory is all well and good, but its only theory. At the end of the day, changing the assumptinos of a major system brings major uncertainty. Is it really worth making such changes in the face of a system that has worked for so long in protecting the peaceful transition of power in the United States?
We may agree to disagree on which system provides more protections against the rise of a dictator, but the electoral system has the benefit of 230 years of success at electing Presidents within the rule of law in this country. Changing the fundamental way that we elect the President introduces deep uncertainty into the process. For what reason is it proposed to change the system? Because a close election caused controversy. No matter what system you use for electing the Presidency, when the candidates are withing 1/2 of 1% of one another, there will be division and controversy.
Post a Comment