Last summer, the State of Maryland passed a law that effectively encourages the state to abandon the electoral-college system of electing the U.S. president. The law would award the state's electoral votes to whichever candidate wins the popular vote, provided that a similar law is passed by enough states to total 270 electoral votes altogether.
Should Illinois join Maryland's efforts to bypass the electoral college?
An argument for:
"The Founding Fathers may have had good reasons to elect the president by an electoral-college system in the 18th century, but here in the 21st, it has distorted the American political process. Candidates campaign on wedge issues in swing states and leave out the bulk of the country. States that aren’t clearly liberal or conservative become saturated with political advertising that just makes people more cynical. Defenders of the electoral college claim that an election by popular vote would mean that small or less populous states would be ignored. But in a national media market, this is not a risk. Illinois should add its 21 electoral votes to this effort."
An argument against Electoral College reform:
"The Electoral College is an easy target for those who would lament over the current state of American democracy. They ignore more immediate causes of our problems: special interests’ influence over politicians, inadequate media coverage of public affairs, the deterioration of civil discourse. But even if the electoral college is to blame, this is not the way to end it. If the United States is going to alter something as important as the election of the president, it should do so through the normal process of amending the Constitution. Illinois could be a leader in that process, but it should not bypass it by joining Maryland’s effort."
I raised the idea that anyone who wanted to get on the SoapBox to debate me on the merits of the Electoral College today to bring it on. But make sure you have some historical background on the Founding Fathers thoughts on what has became a Constitutional example of electoral federalism and political folly. (In the 1960 election, Richard Nixon vowed to visit every state, so while he campaigned in Alaska, the Kennedy campaign secured Illinois by mobilizing the Chicago machine).
Here is some more Electoral College history and the popular ideas raised to reform it:
The Founding Fathers struggled as we did with selecting a chief executive. James Wilson, a Pennsylvania delegate to the Constitutional Convention, said "in truth, the most difficult of all on which we had to decide [was selecting a president]." Their charge was to carve a republican form of government. For our founders, direct democracy was not a serious option. Democracy was an alien notion to be guarded against. Yet they were dedicated to the "consent of the governed." They were committed to an ordered liberty. The Electoral College appeared to be the compromise design. It would allow a measure of local control while at the same time restrained by the national legislature. This system would not disproportionately advantage the big or small states. A close look at these precedings, however, reveal that the Framers did not anticipate that the Electoral College would ever select the president. Rather, it appears as if they fancifully expected the House of Representatives to play the predominant role in each election. In the words of James Madison, "[the people would have a] disposition to prefer a citizen of their own state." "It will rarely happen," George Mason wrote, "that the majority of the whole votes will fall on anyone candidate."
Other than George Washington, they did not imagine anyone else with a large enough national following to sufficiently win a majority of the elector's votes. They assumed the elected representatives of the people, serving in the House, would be the real electors. The lengthy debate during the Convention was less on the selection of electors and more on the procedure of the vote in Congress. History would prove their assumptions to be wrong. Apart from the elections of 1800, 1824, and 1876, the Electoral College has worked. Even in the dramatic election of 2000. In addition, the elections of 1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000 have seen the popularly elected candidate losing the Electoral College vote. In the end the House of Representatives has rarely decided our president. More amazingly, the Electoral College has remained intact, virtually unchanged from its supposed broken beginning.
This is not to say it is without flaw. If we did not know before, we certainly know now of the "winner-take-all" system. Each slate of electors, determined by the total representation in Congress, are given over entirely to the candidate receiving the most votes in each respective state. Another flaw we learned was that this "winner-take-all" system provides for the popular winner to lose in the Electoral College. This has now happened four times in our history. The latest of course was Al Gore who gained more than 300,000 total votes than George W. Bush yet lost his quest for the White House. Some argue that this "violates the basic tenets of democracy." The Electoral College has been called "old fashioned" and "broken." It's flaws were reportedly about to cause "a constitutional crisis" producing "an illegitimate" president. Many have called for an end to the Electoral College.
Here are some of the proposed remedies:
1. National Popular Vote -- This proposal would make the presidential election a practice in pure direct democracy. The Electoral College would be completely abolished. Many see glaring problems with this plan. First, it would appear to jeopardize our two-party system by encouraging minor parties. Would the president elect have to gain a majority of the vote or just a plurality? Seemingly this proposal would assure that most of our presidents receive only a minority of the popular vote. Furthermore, it would all but make irrelevant the small states. A look at the regions won by Al Gore, with a 300,000 advantage, would show remarkably a small geographic area of victory. The guarded principle of federalism would suffer under a direct election of president.
2. Proportional Voting -- This proposal would eliminate the "winner-take-all" system. In its place would be a system which would divide the electoral vote in relation to a candidate's respective vote totals in each state. This system would also encourage the growth of minor parties with strong regional or ideological followings. It too would increase the danger of electing presidents with minority support. Under the proportional system it would be unlikely that any president would receive a majority of the electoral vote. Applying this system to past elections would have changed a number of previous winners. One example would be McKinley's victory over William Jennings Bryan in 1896.
3. Single Member District -- This plan would align each Congressional District to an electoral vote. In addition each state would receive two electoral votes at large. In addition to the criticisms associated with the proportional plan, this idea subjects itself to the partisan practice of gerrymandering. Following each census, the battle would become even more fierce to control state legislatures who draw the boundaries of Congressional districts. The ability to marginalize various minority interests could possibly diminish even more our commitment to "one man one vote."
4. Keep the Electoral College but Drop the Electors -- Many offer a simple adjustment but with little practical impact. As we learned in 2000, electors in many states are still free to vote their conscience. They are not bound by the "will of the people." Many, as you recall, still held out hope for Al Gore even after the Supreme Court's decision. They hoped to persuade just two electors to go against their state's popular choice. This would have thrown the election into the House of Representatives. The hope of eliminating this logistical uncertainty is the basis of this plan. Since the Constitutional Convention in 1787, the Electoral College has been buttressed by legislation, court opinion, and custom. This despite its serious flaws. The 2000 election has forced upon us more talk of the Electoral College than we thought possible.
In the end, it would appear to be just that, talk. A system broken from the beginning appears to have prevailed again. Unless an aroused public cries out, we will just have to live with it pieces and all. May we be so lucky. At least with the Electoral College, we now know what we are getting.
6 comments:
Cumbersome as it is, the Electoral College is better than the alternatives. Let's check out the faults of the various alternatives.
OPTION 1 would place all the electoral power in the hands of Californians, New Yorkers, Texans, Pennsylvanians, and Illinoisans, virtually eliminating any voice in presidential elections the less populous states have unless they voted as one giant bloc (which is completely impossible).
OPTION 2 would, as Mr. Wolak said, increase the possibility of nobody getting a majority of votes. Thus, elections like the 2000 election would become the norm, and the House of Representatives would control elections, which means whoever was the majority party at the time could put their candidate in office.
OPTION 3 would center all the electoral power into America's largest cities. Chicago alone probably has more electoral districts, and under this system more electoral votes, than some states. Candidates could concentrate on the cities and completely ignore everyone else.
OPTION 4 is basically a combination of the current system and Option 2. See above.
The Electoral College is a mess, but it's the best system we have. You know what they say: Democracy is the world's worst form of government except for every other kind.
James said...
I believe doing it Maryland's way would better accomadate the race for President. All the candidates always campaign hard in the swing states and not enough everywhere else. If we did the electoral college like the senate and have all states equally valued the candidates would have to campaign everywhere and not just certain states.
Garrett commented:
"OPTION 1 would place all the electoral power in the hands of Californians, New Yorkers, Texans, Pennsylvanians, and Illinoisans, virtually eliminating any voice in presidential elections the less populous states have unless they voted as one giant bloc (which is completely impossible)."
I am sorry but that is so stupid. The whole freaking point is that the president should be elected BY THE PEOPLE and NOT BY THE STATES. Switching to a national popular vote would make the election LESS ABOUT THE STATES, NOT MORE. The whole electoral college is a relic from the times when a handful of political figureheads were in charge of the governing of the masses. Entirely understandably, they were worried about these uneducated masses leading the country down the wrong path (I hope that no one will argue here that today we should all be equally distrusted). Our electoral college system of today makes it seem like we still have this handful of figureheads running around...dismissing the idea of the people electing the president and instead trying to balance out which state should get the most say in who is elected. As it is, this makes presidential candidates prefer certain states to others. Let me restate that, the electoral college makes presidential candidates focus more attention to some states while ignoring others. A national popular vote would make the vote of the guy sitting in Oregon equal the same as the vote of the guy sitting in Kentucky. Everyone needs to stop seeing votes divided up into states -- that's what the electoral college does and that's why people, like Garrett, think that a national popular vote would somehow let California elect the president.
You should be able to put state lines ANYwhere without it changing the meaning or effect of the vote of the people living on either side of the lines. State lines should be irrelevant to how votes are counted.
As far as I'm concerned, any system of voting allows for the election of someone other than who the people elected is just plain wrong.
What I was referring to, Kajsa, was the fact that the states I listed have a huge population advantage over states like Nebraska and Kansas. Thus, a presidential candidate need only campaign among the largest states. Maybe a candidate is extremely popular among urban states but not among rural states. Option 1 would mean rural states have less of a voice. One vote would still be one vote, but the most populous states are a huge voting bloc, electoral college or no electoral college.
I know what you meant, Garrett. And by the way, I shouldn't have said your opinion was "stupid" ...I'm sorry!
What I'm saying is that I don't think we should be thinking of it in terms of states. With a national popular vote, votes won't be counted in terms of states so there's no need to think of it like California has more votes than Nebraska, it's just that there are more Californians out there than Nebraskans...but each and everyone of them should get to exercise the full power of their individual vote. As it is (and as you said in your latest post) California gets more electoral votes than Nebraska anyway. I think that we should view the president as a position that should be elected purely by the people. I think it's rather pointless to think of an individual vote in any other terms...such as thinking of a vote from California as any different from a vote from Nebraska. I don't agree that this means that a person in Nebraska will have less say than a person in California: one vote is one vote. It is only true that Nebraska has less say than California when you view them as states - which is really quite a strange thing to do because when you think of it, isn't it right that 50 votes should count as 50 votes and 100 votes should count as 100 votes no matter where they come from? Why re-work the system so that those 100 people have less influence just because they all happen to live next to each other?
Sure with a national popular vote candidates will be attracted to areas they think they can swing in their favor...but that happens as it is. There's really no way to change that.
***CONTINUING***
(forgot to mention some things, sorry)
-As it is presidential candidates chose certain areas over others to campaign in. And with a national popular vote they wouldn't necessarily chose the more populous areas over the less populous areas. In the current system candidates don't just run to the states that have more electoral votes. They go to the swing states. No matter what the system of voting is or will ever be, candidates will always go to the areas they think they can swing based on poll information. If anyone thinks they know of a way to avoid this type of selective campaigning, I'd be delighted to hear it, but until then I think it must be left out as a complaint against a national popular vote.
-And again, what I really think is messed up is thinking of individuals' votes being the votes of a state instead of their own votes. Ideally I'd like to see a popular vote announced without a map of red and blue states, or any other statement of where those votes came from. I think that aspect of it is totally irrelevant.
-Also, about that whole analogy of states being like games in a world series - if each state were truly a game then each state would have 1 vote in a presidential election...just like games are counted. Then the president would be elected by the states, not the people. You wouldn't get to have a say at all really. You'd have to go along with whatever choice everyone else around you made...however that would end up working out. Please explain to me why this would be a good idea. I think it's ridiculous.
-These things considered, what is really so wrong about the idea of each person getting one vote in presidential elections? Why must we subdue our influence in order to let states compete for / try to balance power?
Post a Comment