Now that the election is over (well, nearly over; there are still three senate seats undecided) perhaps it’s time to take a long, hard look at the Electoral College: what it is, why it is, and why many people say it’s time has come and gone. And what we might use instead.
Please note that I am not, myself, calling for the abolition of the Electoral College, or its widespread revamping. But others are, and they have a point. Several points, actually. And while I may suggest a few things, I suggest them more for discussion purposes than for anything else. I don’t claim to have any answers, and I don’t necessarily agree with anything here, but it’s something that should be discussed rather than dismissed out of hand.
What it is: The Electoral College is how we choose our President; contrary to popular opinion, we don’t select them by election. Did you know that you never actually voted for President?
We vote for electors, who are pledged to one candidate or the other but are actually free (in theory) to vote for anyone they please. Each state has a number of electors equal to its number of Representatives in the House plus its Senators. In most states, it’s a matter of "to the victor go the spoils;" whoever wins the popular vote in that state gets all of that state’s electoral votes. (Maine and Nebraska use a system in which one elector is chosen by each congressional district and two are selected by the state as a whole.) Most states don’t bother to list potential electors on the ballot.
The potential problems are numerous, not limited to the possibility that the guy that comes in second nationally can still win the election through the Electoral College (this is what happened in 2000). Remember that electors can, in theory, vote for whoever they like; it’s possible that one candidate could win both the popular vote and the Electoral College and still lose when the electors actually get together and themselves vote for President. (This isn’t as unlikely as you might think; "renegade" electors voting for someone other than their pledged candidate aren’t all that uncommon. Electors who behave in this way are called "faithless electors" and less than half of the states have laws to punish them.)
(This is all explained at Wikipedia in far more detail.)
Arguments for and against this system are numerous. You could say (I’m quoting Wikipedia) that the Electoral College "...is inherently undemocratic and gives certain swing states disproportionate clout." You could also say that (again quoting Wikipedia) it is "...an important and distinguishing feature of the federal system, and protects the rights of smaller states."
You could also say that if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does.*
Like I said, I’m not coming out in support of any specific plan to reform this system, but these alternatives I offer for your consideration and/or discussion.
1. Popular vote
It would seem to make sense to choose the President by direct popular vote. Simply put, this would mean that whoever gets the most votes wins. Period. No Electoral college, no electors, no one (like me) constantly griping that the public will has been subverted.
The problem is that this gives the more populous states like California or New York more power to select the President than, say, Delaware or Alaska.
2. Take the states out of it
This would involve several things. First of all, a single national authority to manage the elections rather than each state having its own. Similarly, you would need one national set of election laws and regulations that would apply to all states equally. Electoral votes would be assigned (and this is just one way of doing it, and just my suggestion) one to each congressional district. Whether you still have electoral votes for each senatorial seat is something we’d have to work out...but this business of a single candidate taking all of the electoral votes in any given state would be right out.
This isn’t going to make anyone who fears and distrusts federal authority happy, obviously.
3. "Electors? We don’t need no stinkin’ electors!"
Maybe we could keep the Electoral College as it is but just do away with the electors. This would certainly solve the problem of "faithless electors." frankly, I’m not sure I see the point of having electors, anyway.
The problem with all of these suggestions is that it would take a Constitutional amendment to enact any of them...and the U.S. Constitution is a damned difficult thing to amend. It’s intended to be. For good reasons. So if you want to change it, you’ve got a tough row to hoe. It’s difficult, but it can be done. It would take a full-time commitment from someone, at the very least.
Anyone want that job?
The Blues Viking
*Thanks, Groucho.
The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
Call me an EC Abolitionist.
VERY BRIEFLY:
Full time job!? Pssh! If Obama called for it, with his text msg army, it would be ratified in 100 days. Every red in a blue state, and vice versa would vote for it. Everyone who voted for Gore would vote for it.
"A (red) HERRING!"
"The problem is that this gives the more populous states like California or New York more power to select the President than, say, Delaware or Alaska." The STATES would no longer matter. The state boundary would mean nothing.
If this happened, the changes would be:
1) Population centers would have more sway over rural areas, but only if the cities are monolithic. They are not.
2) Campaign strategies would have to change. They would no longer visit small towns in "battleground states" they would hold huge stadium rallies in battleground CITIES. But campaigns have ALREADY changed. Text msgs know no state boundary, nor DishTV nor Cable TV.
3) This is big... Election COVERAGE would be devastated. No more pundits predicting which state will fall. It would be boring, like watching water leak. Ratings would PLUMMET! Yes, the west coast would spike the numbers, but which STATE they are in is irrelevant. Alaska and Hawaii would be come irrelevant because the outcome would be OBVIOUS before their polls closed. So, go to ALL MAIL ballets, a la Oregon.
In, the interest of brevity (ha!) I'm sidestepping recount rules (a la Franken/MN) and exactly HOW the vote is done (Voter Smart Card).
President Obama, ask not what your country can do for you, but how soon can you call for the XXVIIIth Amendment. Yes, there IS a XXVIIth.
I don’t think you appreciate just what it takes to ammend the constitution.
Go here for an education: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/ . Briefly:
First, you need either a two-thirds vote by the House and the Senate, or a two-thirds majority of the states to call for a constitutional convention (for which you have to select delegates and get them to the convention), plus you need a place to hold the convention and the money to fund it, just to propose an amendment.
Even if you are able to jump that hurdle, there’s this one; three-quarters of the states must then ratify the new amendment before it becomes part of the Constitution. This would be done in fifty separate elections, not in any one national election.
Remember that Obama only took (I think) 26 states plus the District of Columbia; the likelihood of him being able to pull together a full three-quarters majority in fifty state elections, by force of personality or by any other means, is way low; the likelihood of doing all of this in less than 100 days is nil.
That’s assuming he even wants to; I don’t recall ever hearing him express an opinion on this subject, and could you really blame him if he decided he’s got more important things to do right now?
Do you begin to see what I mean when I say that this is going to be a full time job? Do you really want to try to do this without making a full commitment to what it will take?
I’m not trying to stop you. I just think you should have some appreciation of how deep the water is before you jump in, much less encourage others to jump in after you.
The Blues Viking
(Oh, and by the way, if you’re thinking that this ponderous process could be speeded up using modern technology, or even just making it less ponderous, you’re probably right and I encourage you to try; all it would take is a constitutional amendment.)
These opinions are mine. Get your own.
Post a Comment