A Step toward Tyranny
Maryland has enacted a law that will require their members of the electoral college to vote for the candidate gaining a plurality (not a majority!) of the votes cast for president. This law takes effect once enough states totalling 270 electors enact the same law. This NYTimes editorial lauds this move as one that will make all voters important, not just those in swing states. They're dead wrong. It will have the opposite effect. It will make the vote of everyone, except those in the largest metro areas, irrelevant. It moves us toward the Tyranny of the Majority.
Rather than campaigning in a variety of settings, presidential candidates will focus exclusively on the suburban voters in a half dozen population centers. The rest of America won't count, because even if someone loses all the votes in other places, by winning the major metro vote they will still have enough to carry the election. No longer will candidates need to try and appeal to a broad spectrum of voters. Upstate New York is no longer in play, only NYC and the surrounding area. Downstate Illinois will be irrelevant. Carry Metro Chicago and you've more than made up for the lose of the downstate voters. Southern Cal would be more important than the whole middle of the country except Chicago, Dallas and Houston. Carry a large majority in 5 or 6 of the largest CMSA's, and you will easily collect more than a third of the popular vote. A respectable showing in the other major metro areas and a candidate is assured of election under this proposed system. Demagoguery that appeals to a very select portion of the population will be sufficient. This is just direct election in a different wrapper.
Consider that the winning plurality in most of the recent close elections has been just over 40% of the votes cast. Bill Clinton was elected in 1992 with only 43% of the popular vote. The certified vote totals for 2004 show W gathering 50%. Was the election of President Clinton in 1992 less "fair" than that of President Bush in 2004? It most certainly is if we use the logic behind the support for this proposed change in our election laws. And I doubt that few readers would agree that Clinton was unfairly elected in 1992.
As to the argument that our electoral system is held hostage by a few swing states, consider that throughout our election history there have been defining issues in each election, and specific regions in which those issues were the hot topic of debate. "Swing" states are nothing new. Which states they are changes over the course of time. Andrew Jackson's election was driven by the vote in Tennesee and the other frontier states. His campaign played to those states. As late as the mid 1800's winning Connecticut was as important as winning Missouri.
A much better solution to the "problem" of swing states, is to repeal the laws enacted in the 1970's that bind electors to vote for the candidate who carried a plurality of the vote in each state. By restoring the freedom of the electors to vote as they choose, we resolve the issue of someone winning a MAJORITY of the popular vote and losing the ELECTORAL vote. If there were an election in which a candidate received a majority of the popular vote but did not carry a plurality in enough states to insure victory in the electoral college, electors would be free to vote the national will of the people. In spite of all the shouting in the media and various blogs, this is a VERY RARE occurrence. I need to recheck my history, but I believe it has only happened once in the whole 200+ history of the US. One election in 50 is pretty long odds to go changing the whole system into something that is so highly susceptible to pandering that it makes our current situation seem like high statesmanship.
The grave danger in my solution is that by allowing those elected to the electoral college to have discretion in voting we are trusting the election of the president to the integrity and wisdom of the electors. (That is EXACTLY how the system was originally devised and understood!) It's been a long, long time since voters payed attention to who these people are. That might be a much better place to start if we really want to improve on presidential elections. An even better place to begin is in the primary and caucus system used by the two major parties. But that's best left for another day.
Rather than campaigning in a variety of settings, presidential candidates will focus exclusively on the suburban voters in a half dozen population centers. The rest of America won't count, because even if someone loses all the votes in other places, by winning the major metro vote they will still have enough to carry the election. No longer will candidates need to try and appeal to a broad spectrum of voters. Upstate New York is no longer in play, only NYC and the surrounding area. Downstate Illinois will be irrelevant. Carry Metro Chicago and you've more than made up for the lose of the downstate voters. Southern Cal would be more important than the whole middle of the country except Chicago, Dallas and Houston. Carry a large majority in 5 or 6 of the largest CMSA's, and you will easily collect more than a third of the popular vote. A respectable showing in the other major metro areas and a candidate is assured of election under this proposed system. Demagoguery that appeals to a very select portion of the population will be sufficient. This is just direct election in a different wrapper.
Consider that the winning plurality in most of the recent close elections has been just over 40% of the votes cast. Bill Clinton was elected in 1992 with only 43% of the popular vote. The certified vote totals for 2004 show W gathering 50%. Was the election of President Clinton in 1992 less "fair" than that of President Bush in 2004? It most certainly is if we use the logic behind the support for this proposed change in our election laws. And I doubt that few readers would agree that Clinton was unfairly elected in 1992.
As to the argument that our electoral system is held hostage by a few swing states, consider that throughout our election history there have been defining issues in each election, and specific regions in which those issues were the hot topic of debate. "Swing" states are nothing new. Which states they are changes over the course of time. Andrew Jackson's election was driven by the vote in Tennesee and the other frontier states. His campaign played to those states. As late as the mid 1800's winning Connecticut was as important as winning Missouri.
A much better solution to the "problem" of swing states, is to repeal the laws enacted in the 1970's that bind electors to vote for the candidate who carried a plurality of the vote in each state. By restoring the freedom of the electors to vote as they choose, we resolve the issue of someone winning a MAJORITY of the popular vote and losing the ELECTORAL vote. If there were an election in which a candidate received a majority of the popular vote but did not carry a plurality in enough states to insure victory in the electoral college, electors would be free to vote the national will of the people. In spite of all the shouting in the media and various blogs, this is a VERY RARE occurrence. I need to recheck my history, but I believe it has only happened once in the whole 200+ history of the US. One election in 50 is pretty long odds to go changing the whole system into something that is so highly susceptible to pandering that it makes our current situation seem like high statesmanship.
The grave danger in my solution is that by allowing those elected to the electoral college to have discretion in voting we are trusting the election of the president to the integrity and wisdom of the electors. (That is EXACTLY how the system was originally devised and understood!) It's been a long, long time since voters payed attention to who these people are. That might be a much better place to start if we really want to improve on presidential elections. An even better place to begin is in the primary and caucus system used by the two major parties. But that's best left for another day.
posted by Wake of the Flood at 9:56 AM
1 Comments:
I simply cannot concentrate enough right now to process this, but I'll come back. Interesting topic.
Post a Comment
<< Home