Is the Electoral College good for America?

[Cain]

Originally I titled this thread, "Should we abolish the Electoral College." Since I expect to rehearse common arguments for and against, I anticipate people making the mostly brainless claim that it "protects" small states by giving them attention and clout. I think it reduces our elections to arbitrary strategizing: should Obama go after Virginia and Iowa, or Ohio, or a western strategy of Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico, etc etc etc. We're not even talking about appealing to swing blocs but appealing to swing blocs in contested states. I don't even need to ask if it's "good for American democracy" because it's anathema to democracy. And besides, whether or not you think democracy is good and noble is another question altogether.

 

[Puppycow]

Since I don't know what "Srongtly" means I can only disagree.

 

[ZouPrime]

I don't even need to ask if it's "good for American democracy" because it's anathema to democracy.

A system can be considered democratic without being strictly based on vote plurality. Representative democracies are democratic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

 

[Cain]

"Srongtly," of course, is a stronger (or "srongter") form of "strongly." I have no idea how the 't' is so far out of place. Kids, don't do drugs... everyday. It's an expensive habit.

A system can be considered democratic without being strictly based on vote plurality. Representative democracies are democratic.

But the Electoral College is not exactly representative. It privileges some states. Now, there are certainly degrees of what we could call representativeness. For voting purposes in this poll, for example, we could double the votes cast by people's whose names begin with a Q, X, Y, or Z. The results would still be vaguely representative, but that's not one person, one vote. Also, with the Electoral College we are not technically voting for the President. We are telling our electors who to vote for.

 

[ZouPrime]

But the Electoral College is not exactly representative. It privileges some states. Now, there are certainly degrees of what we could call representativeness. For voting purposes in this poll, for example, we could double the votes cast by people's whose names begin with a Q, X, Y, or Z. The results would still be vaguely representative, but that's not one person, one vote. Also, with the Electoral College we are not technically voting for the President. We are telling our electors who to vote for.

Contrary to your idea of giving more votes to voters with name beginning by specific letters (which we will both agree is pretty dumb), there's a logic between the electoral college system, as well as historic reasons why it works this way. Like most (all?) democracies, yours include rules to give more power to natural minorities ("It privileges some states", as you say, which has actual social and political benefits) as well as rules to privilege consensus choices over huge majorities that have a limited geographically coverage.

Of course, we can always debate how these systems works, and how they could be modified to actually work better. I just wanted to point out that "pure" democracies, using a simple "the most vote wins" election system, have their problems and shouldn't be considered better than existing systems.

 

[Just thinking]

... I just wanted to point out that "pure" democracies, using a simple "the most vote wins" election system, have their problems and shouldn't be considered better than existing systems.

Certainly true. One must not forget the all too obvious, that the title of this country is the United States. Individual colonies (at first) or possessions which have to some degree their own laws and rights. Turning any election into nothing more than a simple majority of votes nationwide clearly overrides that individuality (if one thinks that certain states or group of states control outcomes too much and influence campaigning now, imagine how it would be without election borders --- would swing states even exist?). It was no easy task coming out with what we now have, and I think it compromises both sets of problems --- giving states their individuality and still allowing for heavily populated areas to posses greater influence.

 

[Just thinking]

For voting purposes in this poll, for example, we could double the votes cast by people's whose names begin with a Q, X, Y, or Z. The results would still be vaguely representative, but that's not one person, one vote.

Yes, you could, but there certainly would be much objection. The electoral college doesn't assign more votes arbitrarily ... it uses populations to decide which states get more; a much more reasonable method. True, it's not one person one vote, but what makes that most pronounced is when voters do not come out to vote in proportion to their electoral status.

Also, with the Electoral College we are not technically voting for the President. We are telling our electors who to vote for.

They by and large do vote as the voters go.

 

[Cain]

Contrary to your idea of giving more votes to voters with name beginning by specific letters (which we will both agree is pretty dumb), there's a logic between the electoral college system, as well as historic reasons why it works this way. Like most (all?) democracies, yours include rules to give more power to natural minorities ("It privileges some states", as you say, which has actual social and political benefits) as well as rules to privilege consensus choices over huge majorities that have a limited geographically coverage.

I do not see how certain states are "natural" minorities when state boundaries are a human-construct. We do not see their borders from space. Yes, there is a historic reason for the Electoral College: the founders distrusted the will of the people. The founders of this country did not want the direct election of Senators either. The problem is that our institutions no longer reflect our dominant values. Another problem: This country originally consisted of 13 states. Now we have 50, plus the District of Columbia.

Of course, we can always debate how these systems works, and how they could be modified to actually work better. I just wanted to point out that "pure" democracies, using a simple "the most vote wins" election system, have their problems and shouldn't be considered better than existing systems.

Now that I see where you're from that perspective does not surprise me. However, I don't think one person, one vote representative system is anywhere near a "pure" democracy.

Just Thinking:

One must not forget the all too obvious, that the title of this country is the United States.

Times certainly do change. People used to say "these" United States; we "are" the United States. Now we say "this IS the United States." State "individuality" has been declining since the Articles of Confederation failed, and aside from a resurgence during the Civil War, it has continued to decline.

The electoral college doesn't assign more votes arbitrarily ... it uses populations to decide which states get more; a much more reasonable method.

But this isn't saying anything at all. My letter voting scheme is certainly not arbitrary in design because it's explicitly trying to increase the clout of people with unpopular starting letters. What I'm arguing is that both systems are morally arbitrary.

The last time I checked California has something like 70 times the population of Wyoming, Dick Cheney's state. Now, we do not have 70 times as much representation in the House, and we certainly do not have 70 times as much representation in the Senate. Presidential elections are a hybrid: 55 Electoral Votes versus 3 (2 Senators + 1 House member). 3/55 -- I would really like to know how you justify that moral calculus. Feel free to refer to the most infamous ratio in the Constitution for support.

Two challenges: ZouPrime wrote: ("[the Electoral College] privileges some states", as you say, which has actual social and political benefits..."

OK, what are the benefits? And remember, it only has real value if the benefits exceed the costs.

Just Thinking:

If one thinks that certain states or group of states control outcomes too much and influence campaigning now, imagine how it would be without election borders

Such as...?

If the Electoral College were proposed today, I bet people would universally condemn it. I suspect people obediently accept it because it's the way "things have always been done."

 

[Just thinking]

Times certainly do change. People used to say "these" United States; we "are" the United States. Now we say "this IS the United States." State "individuality" has been declining since the Articles of Confederation failed, and aside from a resurgence during the Civil War, it has continued to decline.

So? ... how each state changes depends on the population of that state at the time, how they vote and wish to govern themselves. I believe you would still find strong opposition to some sort of election smearing that would place way too much emphasis in narrow regions.

But this isn't saying anything at all. My letter voting scheme is certainly not arbitrary in design because it's explicitly trying to increase the clout of people with unpopular starting letters. What I'm arguing is that both systems are morally arbitrary.

Well on that we'll strongly disagree. (Go and try to ratify the electoral college to last names and see just how many will laugh you out of congress --- from both sides.)

The last time I checked California has something like 70 times the population of Wyoming, Dick Cheney's state.

And on the flip side of that coin is the fact that it's only 1 state. Sorry, but what may be good for California may not be very good for, say Mississippi, or Maine, or .... take your pick. The electoral college is a balancing act in an attempt to proportionate (according to both populations and region) the represented will of the people.

Now, we do not have 70 times as much representation in the House, and we certainly do not have 70 times as much representation in the Senate. Presidential elections are a hybrid: 55 Electoral Votes versus 3 (2 Senators + 1 House member). 3/55 -- I would really like to know how you justify that moral calculus.

You cannot isolate one section of our governing process and attack it as if it's the sole determining factor at work. There's the House, Senate and President that all work together in processing the will of the people. The Senate cannot pass laws on its own merit. Each branch has its own powers and limitations. Each is empowered on a different level of representation.

Such as...?

... letting California determine the laws that other states with far different environments (of all kinds) must follow. What works in California may not work elsewhere --- or even be a disaster.

If the Electoral College were proposed today, I bet people would universally condemn it. I suspect people obediently accept it because it's the way "things have always been done."

Evidence?

 

[Pookster]

I think it's good for America. It keeps some small States from being completely ignored in the Presidential election process. For less densely populated States, it helps level the playing field just a bit with the big population areas. Some might consider that unfair, but oh well. Nothing in life is fair anyways.

 

[Cain]

So? ... how each state changes depends on the population of that state at the time, how they vote and wish to govern themselves.

Indeed. In the "Great Compromise" New Jersey wanted states to have equal power in the legislature, whereas Virginia wanted power proportional to population size. For many years (maybe until very recently) New Jersey has had more people than Virginia. The character of the country, and its individual states, has dramatically changed.

Well on that we'll strongly disagree. (Go and try to ratify the electoral college to last names and see just how many will laugh you out of congress --- from both sides.)

Um, two things: 1) The letter voting scheme was intended as analogy for polls on this forum, the country. 2) I believe I said something earlier about people condemning the Electoral College were it proposed today, to which you asked "evidence?"

Well, let's look at the systems the democratic systems that have emerged in the last two hundred years. Has there been any sort of convergence toward American style "democracy"? The answer is "no," but we could cite other factors. Most people in our country unaware of the fact that they do not vote for the President. People outside of our doctrinal system cast a suspicious eye on American "democracy" in 2000, when the person who got the most votes did not win. It's because, contrary to broadcast and news articles, we do not have AN election. We have 51 elections. There's also a fairly well-documented status-quo bias. If the status quo was simple representative democracy, people would be reluctant to change, let alone to change to such an idiotic system.

And on the flip side of that coin is the fact that it's only 1 state. Sorry, but what may be good for California may not be very good for, say Mississippi, or Maine, or .... take your pick. The electoral college is a balancing act in an attempt to proportionate (according to both populations and region) the represented will of the people.

Yes, Stephen Douglas made exactly this argument in the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates:

I took up Mr. Lincoln's three propositions in my several speeches, analyzed them and pointed out what I believe to be the radical errors contained in them. First, in regard to his doctrine that the government was in violation of the law of God, which says that a house divided against itself cannot stand, I repudiate it as slander upon the immortal framers of our Constitution.... This government was made upon the great basis of the sovereignty of the States, the right to each state to regulate its own domestic institutions to suit itself; and that right was conferred with the understanding and expectation that, inasmuch as each locality had separate interests, each locality must have different and distinct local and domestic institutions, corresponding to its wants and interests. Our fathers knew when they made the government that the laws and institutions which were well adapted to the Green Mountains of Vermont were unsuited to the rice plantations of South Carolina. They knew then, as well as we know now, that the laws and institutions which would be well adapted to the beautiful prairies of Illinois would not be suited to the mining regions of California. They knew in a republic as broad as this, having such a variety of soil, climate and interest, there must necessarily be a corresponding variety of local laws, * the policy and institutions of each State adapted to its condition and wants. For this reason this Union was established on the right of each State to do as it pleased on the question of slavery, and every other question; and the various states were not allowed to complain of, much less interfere with, the policy of their neighbors.

You had Douglas making the same sort of arguments people make today: "You think you're smarter than the Founding Fathers!" Now, universal human rights aside, there are merits this talk about "Green Mountains" and "beautiful prairies." We need laws reflecting the natural geography: it would not make sense to have California-style building codes in Arkansas. But there are also limits to this argument. I think the Supreme Court case here was in Tennessee where some rural district had one representative and Memphis also had one representative (for either the state or national legislature). So, in my state, California, should Kern county have as much power in the state assembly as Los Angeles county? We're a leading agriculture state, so should the holy farmer have a lot more power? I mean, that kind of nonsense is not even a consideration. Some sort of Antebellum sentiment favoring Electoral College style "democracy" in a state as diverse as this one is just laughable. And I bet it's not too attractive in South Carolina either. The problem is where you stand depends on where you sit. It's difficult to reform elections because the people in power do not want to lose their power. Smaller states do not want to voluntarily move toward democracy.

You cannot isolate one section of our governing process and attack it as if it's the sole determining factor at work.

What are you talking about?

There's the House, Senate and President that all work together in processing the will of the people.

That's a lie. (I'm not saying you're lying. You're probably just deluded.) Each of those institutions is corrupt. For the House seats are gerrymandered; politicians are choosing voters rather than voters choosing politicians. The Senate is one of the most undemocratic institutions in the industrialized world, where a tiny portion of the population enjoys influence far beyond its numbers. And of course the Presidency is effed up by the Electoral College. (The Senate and the Presidency in turn screw up the Supreme Court.)

The Senate cannot pass laws on its own merit. Each branch has its own powers and limitations. Each is empowered on a different level of representation.

Yeah...? And your point is...? I think this goes to my above question: What are you talking about?

... letting California determine the laws that other states with far different environments (of all kinds) must follow. What works in California may not work elsewhere --- or even be a disaster.

How is that vis-a-vis the Presidency? Also, you fail to acknowledge the reverse: That rural states are adversely affecting metropolitan areas, the parts of the country that are, well, sort of the most important economically. Look at how Homeland security gives up money. Look at the stupid military bases we have. Christ, look at how tax dollars flow from "blue" to "red" states.

I believe you would still find strong opposition to some sort of election smearing that would place way too much emphasis in narrow regions.

Really? You mean that doesn't already happen??

---
Pookster:

Nothing in life is fair anyways.

This non sequitur appears on this forum and "in life" too often. Also, it does not matter how densely populated a state is. Rhode island is a densely populated state, but it only has three votes.

----------------------------------------------------------------

I guess "Good For America" also depends on one's personal politics. Maybe you think the Electoral College is a good idea if it gets Republicans elected. The New York Daily News published an article before the election discussion Bush's strategy in the "ultimate 'what if' scenario" -- Bush wins the popular vote and Al Gore wins the Electoral College. A Bush adviser is quoted as saying "one thing we don't do is roll over."

In league with the campaign — which is preparing
talking points about the Electoral College's
essential unfairness — a massive talk-radio operation
would be encouraged. "We'd have ads, too,"
says a Bush aide, "and I think you can count on the
media to fuel the thing big-time. Even papers that
supported Gore might turn against him because the
will of the people will have been thwarted."

You bet we would get traction on abolishing the Electoral College if it favored pussy-boys Democrats.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

For me, democracy is about the people. One person, one vote. I really don't care if the geographic distribution ends up with more people in California. Them being in California is irrelevant with a popular vote system.

We shouldn't let the majority have their way because they all live in the same area? WTF is with that?

 

[Cain]

I do want to add that I'm not a nationalist. Ideally, California would secede, starting its own republic. A more decentralized system would disrupt American empire because regional countries would be less likely to send troops, spend money on the military instead of social infrastructure. A more responsive, democratic government would empower us to do act on global warming and universal health-care. We would have a new kind of politics, and probably see a solid majority support gay marriage in ten years. Meanwhile, all of you in the hickoids in fly-over states can teach "intelligent design," institute Juan Crow laws, and go back to having separate drinking fountains like you've always wanted.

 

[shemp]

The one good thing it does is keep us from having to have a NATIONAL recount in a close election. What would it cost to recount every vote in every state?

 

[Loss Leader]

I dislike it but not so much that I'd give money to a group that wants to abolish it.

 

[Pookster]

... Also, it does not matter how densely populated a state is. Rhode island is a densely populated state, but it only has three votes.

Three votes that can't necessarily be ignored in a close election, especially in a winner take all situation. In a national popular vote election, roughly 500,000 potential votes (using a rough 2004 election voter figure) being split 50.1% to 49.9% can more easily be ignored while targeting larger population centers where you can get a bigger bang for the buck. The Electoral College keeps the smaller States on the playing field quite effectively.

Those who wrote the Constitution did it this way for a reason. It seems to have accomplished what they wanted, considering the type of federal government they sought.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Those who wrote the Constitution did it this way for a reason. It seems to have accomplished what they wanted, considering the type of federal government they sought.

Actually, if you look at what occurred at the convention, they didn't really do it for any reason other than desperation.

Many different systems had been proposed, including vote by legislature and vote by electors. For three months they rejected many different options. Then, on the last day of August, they turned the problem over to another committee, which four days later offered a solution that had previously been rejected.

In the end, there doesn't seem to be any political/philosophical insight.

Hamilton offered a rationale in the Federalist No. 68, but his ideas didn't match what the committee decided on. According to Gouverneur Morris, who was a member of the committee, they were afraid of the powers of "intrigue and faction" in the Legislature, and maintaining separation of powers, and the evil of "cabal", which is often referred to in the proceedings, which they thought electors would be immune to because of their distance from one another.

Of course, Hamilton's naive belief in electors immune to factions in silly from the view of today, as many did not predict the power of political parties in the Presidential election. And we can now communicate instantly across the country, so they are not free from cabal either.

And, of course, the process didn't work out and they had to pass an amendment to fix it rather quickly.

We shouldn't have such trust in the Founders. A lot of what they did was based on Enlightenment and political philosophy, but a lot of it was based on compromise, acts of necessity and actual distrust of the people for which they were supposedly building the government.

 

[Cain]

Three votes that can't necessarily be ignored in a close election, especially in a winner take all situation. In a national popular vote election, roughly 500,000 potential votes (using a rough 2004 election voter figure) being split 50.1% to 49.9% can more easily be ignored while targeting larger population centers where you can get a bigger bang for the buck. The Electoral College keeps the smaller States on the playing field quite effectively.

How much do candidates spend on Alaska? How many trips do they make to that state? Or Idaho? Or Nebraska? Or Rhode Island for that matter? It's crazy. They're devoting time and attention to fairly large SWING states, like Ohio and Florida. The whole process leads to ridiculous, arbitrary politics. You have the crazy right-wing Cubans down in Florida influencing our foreign policy. In the freaking nomination process you have candidates pandering to Iowans and their stupid ethanol handouts.

Those who wrote the Constitution did it this way for a reason. It seems to have accomplished what they wanted, considering the type of federal government they sought.

Back that up. What did the Founders believe?

I tire of these vague appeals. 1) The Constitution is for the living, not the dead. 2) You had many competing visions, which is why the Constitution is riddled with compromise (3/5, legislature construction, ending the slave trade in 1808, no export taxes, Bill of Rights, etc). Besides, Madison was wary of a sprawling country when we had four million people. While technology shrinks the world, today we have over 300 million people. Finally, Jefferson said we could use a revolution every generation.

We need McCain to win the popular vote and Obama to win the Electoral College (which is unlikely). Then we need Obama to be act like a genuine liberal (also unlikely). That would be good for the country in the short-term and the long-term.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

The one good thing it does is keep us from having to have a NATIONAL recount in a close election. What would it cost to recount every vote in every state?

I had never considered this angle before. Good thinking.

Besides, the whole poll is irrelevant, since there is no Planet X option.

 

[Kopji]

I do want to add that I'm not a nationalist. Ideally, California would secede, starting its own republic. A more decentralized system would disrupt American empire because regional countries would be less likely to send troops, spend money on the military instead of social infrastructure. A more responsive, democratic government would empower us to do act on global warming and universal health-care. We would have a new kind of politics, and probably see a solid majority support gay marriage in ten years. Meanwhile, all of you in the hickoids in fly-over states can teach "intelligent design," institute Juan Crow laws, and go back to having separate drinking fountains like you've always wanted.

I see some ways that the Electoral College could be made to work better, rather than simply eliminating it:

• A proportional allocation rather than winner take all seems more fair.
  
• Including incentives for candidates to actually campaign in a state in order to get their full assignment of electors.

To disenfranchise the 'flyover states' would create some geographic tensions that we don't have in the US. We sometimes make the mistake of thinking we would not ever have any.

An example that remains in my memory is back in the 1990's when Bill Clinton shut down the National Park system as part of making a point about how to run a governments. The action was not well thought out, but serves as an example of a detached and uncaring government authority over 'flyover states'.

As the federal system shut down in Arizona there was a severe impact on the local economies and businesses based on tourism suffered. As the weeks passed, the Arizona governor mobilized the Arizona National Guard and they were dispatched to "run" Grand Canyon National Park.

We all had the radios on as the armed troop progress made its way north. It turned out ok.

I'm not saying that elimination of the Electoral College would cause a repeat of such events, but some decisions the nation could make could result undesirable side effects.

If we as a nation are trying to head toward a common good, we need to get there together, even if the process is slower and sometimes frustrating.
As to hickdom, you cannot leave us behind to fend for ourselves or we will be at your doors someday.