Today's Times editorial claims that,
The Electoral College is more than just an antiquated institution: it actively disenfranchises voters and occasionally (think 2000) makes the candidate with fewer popular votes president. American democracy would be far stronger without it.
I'm inclined to agree.
But what do you guys think? I'm really interested, I don't know nearly enough about it, but I've yet to hear an especially convincing argument for the E.C. ...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Oh, could I go on all day about this.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, if you live in Texas or California, we're sorry, but you don't get to vote for president. Your vote just doesn't count. You have to live in Michigan or Florida to have any say in the election.
Second, if your issue is relevant but only to Texas or California, we're sorry, but you just don't matter. National candidates? Oh, we'll talk about saving the auto industry so people in Michigan vote for us. We'll talk about not touching Social Security so that the people in Florida vote for us. You want better border control in Arizona? Sorry. You want DOMA repealed for the sake of Rhode Islanders? We don't care.
Thirdly, and most importantly to me, is that the electoral college does not merely add an element of chance to the presidential election, but is actually biased. Let me explain what I mean. Almost always the guy who wins the national popular vote wins the electoral vote, but this only happens on a probabilistic basis. In September Obama looked well poised to lose the PV but win the EV. So the Electoral College is kinda like having a bonus round worth 10% of the points at the end of the game that is determined completely by chance.
But back to the point (#3). The electoral college inherently includes systematic bias. Whom does it help? People in states with small populations.
The formula for the number of EC electors a state gets is equal to the number of House Reps it has plus the number of Senators. The House is fine; again, it adds a small element of chance, but it is proportional to the degree that rounding allows. But then the Senate thing?! Hold on!
(I promise I'll keep it easy)
Let's take two imaginary states:
State A: 10M people, 10 Reps, 2 Sens --> 12 EVs
State B: 1M people, 1 Rep, 2 Sens --> 3 EVs
State A has 833,333 people per EV
State B has 333,333 people per EV
If you live in State A, you get to share your voice with WAY more people. In fact, if there were 5 State A's in the country and 50 State B's (so half the population comes from small and large states) and Candidate A won every large state by 10 vote and Candidate B won every small state by 1 vote, then Candidate B would win the EC 150-60 even though they exactly tied in the popular vote.
So the electoral college systematically favors smaller states by giving EVs proportionately (House) and then adding a flat number per state (Senate).
And guess who small states (by population) vote for? Republicans! In fact, even if the electoral college were in place in 2000, if each states' number of EVs was merely equal to its number of represenatitives, Al Gore still would have won, 224-211.
So while the EC does add an element of randomness to the election, it was the bias in the system, not merely the extra chance involved, that cost Al Gore the 2000 election.
***************************
For more, go here.
Oh, and the disenfranchisement thing? Again back to pts. 1 and 2. If there's widespread vote fraud in CA and TX, who cares? But in OH and FL, it's an epic issue.
ReplyDeleteOh, and even if you are a swing state like Nevada but only have 5 EVs? We might stop by, but come on! Ohio's got 20! Florida's got 27! You seriously think you're worth name-dropping in a Meet the Press interview? Don't think so, Nevada.
Not many can work themselves into such a lather over technicalities in voting procedure, but you have done us proud once again. Allow me to very seriously say, "Bravo."
ReplyDeleteYeah, it's been a long day. I listened to various presentations from 8:00-2:30 and just needed to unload in one way or another.
ReplyDeleteAnd the EC really pisses me off. A lot. And it's not an issue of how often it tilts the election one way or the other. It's that it adds nothing of value. There is no reason to keep it; it is only a dilution of democracy. And that is inexcusable, regardless of justification.
And one more thing.
ReplyDeleteAs bad as 2000 was, the full retardedness of the current system was evident as early as the 1824 presidential election, when one candidate won the popular vote and the electoral vote and did not become president (he won a plurality of both but a majority of neither, which is what allowed this to happen).
Heh, I just read the article. Probably should have done that first :)
ReplyDeleteYour analysis fleshed out the article's main points, though - thanks.
ReplyDeleteSo, what now? Is the vote-pledge system (electors promising to vote for the candidate who wins the popular vote) the answer? Would that be impossible to implement nationally?
It sounds like the whole damn thing should be abolished - so why hasn't there been a more serious and public discussion about that? How hard would it really be, and who's fighting to keep the E.C.?
Well, two things. The great thing about the NPVIC is that it doesn't have to be implemented nationally. Only on a state-by-state basis but states representing half the EVs have to do it.
ReplyDeleteYour other question is interesting. Who is fighting to keep it?
As far as the NPVIC, it was only passed in blue states. It passed in at least one house of state legislatures of about 15 states. The only one of those states Barack Obama lost was Arkansas, and the NPVIC only passed one house there, and only in 2007. Of the governors who vetoed it at least once, I was surprised to learn that they are all Republicans (CA, HI, RI, VT).
And for the EC itself? I don't get the feeling there's an active fight to keep it. But like the idea of impeaching Bush on war crimes, it runs the risk of being too partisan and whiny, a sort of legislative version of the "Bush stole 2000" argument. So I don't think Democrats want to take it up for that reason. And Obama may have some of the same difficulties, as the EC will give more weight to red states next election.
The problem with the "too partisan and whiny" argument, though, is that while I understand the instinct to move forward, an issue like the EC effects everything we do going forward. Impeaching Bush would be purely retroactive, but reforming the system of choosing our leaders is something we're going to have to revisit every 4 years. I guess we have bigger fish to fry right now and the plans for and ramifications of major, sweeping reforms are daunting, but eventually enough people just have to realize that it's bullshit that they're being disenfranchised and get angry.
ReplyDeleteRight?