So, this is my reply to those A Small Victory posters I apparently
picked a fight with earlier. I'm saving space---for Michele at least.
The rest of you can ignore this one. Or read, if you can figure out
what the hell we're talking about. And since this was started
elsewhere, I'm suspending the Election Free Zone bullshit. I can't talk
about the Electoral College whilst ignoring the current campaigns. Just
wouldn't be effective.
It's good to be the boss at times. And away we go...
The reason the electoral college still is useful is that it forces
candidates to spend time in smaller states as well as the huge
population centers on the west coast and northeast. Without the EC, a
few states would determine who was president and who wasn't. Remember,
in the US the largest 10 states maker up a huge percentage of the
population (if I remember correctly, 40+%). Why on Earth would a
candidate even bother spending his limited finances to woo voters in
flyover country when he could bombard New York, California, Texas and
Florida, and then just pick up a few states here and there to round
things out. --Evil Otto.
To Evil Otto (love the name, btw): Don't the presidential candidates
already do that? Kerry's in California for a whole week. He's been in
and out of Florida. He's not going to go anywhere near Texas because he
knows it's a lost cause. Clinton made his first visit to the state I
grew up in---Nebraska---in the last week of his second term. It was the
50th state he'd visited. He'd visited every other state. Why? Not many
electoral votes in Nebraska, nor a lot of Democratic voters. Why, I ask
you, would it be any different if we abolished the Electoral College?
It might not be an INTENDED consequence, but something else the
Electoral College does is insulate the election from widespread fraud.
A purely popular election could be susceptible to big-city political
machines (For example, Philadelphia cast more votes in the 2000
Presidential election than the city had eligible voters.) In a close
election stuff like this could be the deciding factor, but thanks to
the electoral system, all it can do is impact one state. Plus, you
could argue the Electoral College might encourage people to vote in
smaller states - Bush's margin of victory were the Electoral votes of
Alaska and Montana, two states where the votes would be meaningless in
a popular system. --John Barret, Jr. I'll give you the point about
fraud, John. We certainly don't need anyone making nighttime visits to
the Cook County Morgue to resurrect a few votes. But it does hold up
the nation when we have situations like Florida 2000. As far as
encouraging residents in smaller states to vote---do you really think
that? When you have college students registering in the states where
they attend school, just so they can have a better shot at influencing
the outcome of the election, it's pretty apparent that one vote DOES
NOT equal one vote. A Texas presidential vote is much more weighty and
has more influence than a Nebraska presidential vote simply because
there are more electoral votes at stake. It just does. It's simply
because of population, which has nothing to do with electing the
president, other than the total number of votes counted. Yes, when
you're voting for a congressperson, it's very important that you take
into account what they can do for you---because they're your direct
representative in Washington (at least they're supposed to be). They
represent you in the national legislature. A presidential election is
an entirely different story. Is the President going to intervene with
the State Department to expedite your passport application? Do you call
up the President when you need some help with with some random
government bureaucracy? No. You call your congressperson. That's what
they're there for---local stuff. But the presidency is a national
election---what difference should where you live make when you're
voting for president ? It shouldn't. Well, for one thing, the US is made up of states, and is not a
blob of undifferentiated land. If, as Otto suggests, we do not wish to
have the President chosen directly and solely by California, Florida,
and New York, it is absolutely necessary that the other states have
something to "offer". (This is echoed by what Mr. Barrett said, as
well.)
And, furthermore, I don't see that more parties is a good idea in any
way. A system like that of most of Europe gives too much power and
influence to minor, extreme, "fringe" parties and their ideas; a
two-party system has a contrary effect, forcing both toward the center
of the idea/ideology bell-curve (if you will, and if we assume, as
seems to match the way things are, that there's a normal distribution
of ideas and political beliefs at the national level) in order to get
the required support.
Moderation, as a structural part of the very political system, is a
great good---Sigivald
Yes, the US is made up of states. I would much prefer---when it comes
to presidential elections---however that we be one big blob of
undifferentiated land. Like I said to Otto, the candidates already
don't come to most states---what would be different about that under a
system where the popular vote ruled? You think they'd take the "most
bang for the buck" approach, obviously, but I choose to respectcully
disagree with you. I think they would actually be forced out of
Electoral College havens and would have to spend time all over the
country---perhaps even in Hawaii or Alaska, God forbid. If, as Otto
said, 40+ percentage of the population lives in the states with the
most electoral votes, that means 60 percent of the population live elsewhere.
Florida, Texas and California already control the outcome of any
presidential election because of their population mass. You say states
should have something to offer. Why?
Why does joining up with your fellow state residents, voting as a mass,
and casting your Electoral College votes for one particular guy mean in
term of state politics? Currently a state governor can use the
slightest whiff of electoral votes as either a wedge or a
promise---depending upon whom they support. What if all states were
treated equally when it comes to presidential politics? Would that be a
good thing or a bad thing? I think it would be good. I would encourage
you to think outside of the quid pro quo for a moment. If we broke up
the hegemony of the Electoral College, it *might* be possible to break
up some of the pork that gets passed through the Congress. Think about
it: The President would effectively be able to lead. He could stop
being afraid of being blackmailed when it comes to Electoral College
votes. Then go further in ignoring the quid pro quo. How would this
change the way congresspeople act? Would they actually have to
represent the residents of their state and their districts, rather than
playing their part in the party system? The repercussions have the
potential of going far and wide. A vote should equal a vote. And in a
national election---the only one we have in this country---why is it
important that states play a part in the process? I don't think they
should. They just further the quid pro quo; the something for something
that rules the political agenda. I'm sick of that. I want it out of the
presidential election when it comes to states. We're electing the
leader of the entire country. Why should it matter where you live when
deciding this? To jump to your next point, what are we receiving in
return for "moderation, as a structural part of the political system"?
Gridlock. The two parties we have are so close together on the
political spectrum they could breathe for each other. I'm not a big fan
of the potential of a number of double digit political parties, either,
but this is irrelevant in a popular vote presidential election. We
already work on a plurality system: a majority is not needed to win the
presidency. Both times he ran, Clinton won with a plurality, not a
majority. Bush obviously didn't win a majority of votes. How would this
affect the a presidential race any differently than it does now? It
wouldn't. There wouldn't be any runoffs, nor are they needed. The
Electoral College confers a majority upon the winner of the popular
election by throwing an entire state's electoral votes to the winner.
Part of the College's purpose is to legitimize the popular election.
When, on election night, CNN announces who the next President of the
United States will be, why exactly do we need electors to "legitimize"
the election? Didn't Judy Woodruff just do that? Of course I'm being
facetious here, but doesn't the math legitimize the election? The one
vote + one vote+ one vote.... Ok, and that's enough for tonight. I'll
get to you, Dorkafork (I love your handle, by the way). I'm just too
tired to start talking about those Godawful BORING Federalist Papers
this evening (sorry, I hold them in great respect, I just hate reading
them. College. Political Science major. Enough said). If you guys have
anything further to tell me---and I'm sure you will---the email address
is on the right. I'm sorry there isn't a comments section on my humble,
freebie blog. I'm working on it. If you bother to email me, I'll be
sure to post your reply on the site so the five people and the one
chimpanzee who read this thing will be riveted with the Madisonian
levels of our discourse.