I wanted to get this post up before the election so there would be no chance of it seeming like a whiner in case the unspeakable occurs on November 4th. That and should the unspeakable occur on November 4th, I’ll likely be busy as I plot my escape to Canada or Bali. Can you just live in Bali? Note to self: google Bali immigration website.
Let me preface my argument with: I have a great deal of respect for the founding fathers. I mean if you overlook the whole slavery thing, lack of women’s rights and whatnot, they were the best of the best when it comes to creating this little thing we call Democracy.
But let’s face it, there is no perfect union. No matter how many times we pat ourselves on the back for such, it really has a number of flaws. One of the bigger ones is the Electoral College in my humble opinion.
I’ve read the arguments for and against the system we currently use. Did the founding fathers lack faith in their fellow countryMEN? Was it about protecting the little states? Poor, poor Rhode Island. You know I’ve never in all my travels met anyone from Rhode Island? Don’t you think that’s a little weird?
Where was I?
Oh yes, the Electoral College. Back in the day as the watercolor that would be our political landscape was painted, great concern was given to the small states. Many feared that small states would lose any voice in federal government in a straight one MAN – one vote system was put in place.
But according to some sources, though this is the reason so many quote for the EC’s inception, the founding fathers might have had other thoughts in mind.
from Wikipedia article:
The design of the Electoral College was based upon several assumptions and anticipations of the Framers of the Constitution:
1. Each state would employ the district system of allocating electors.
2. Each presidential elector would exercise independent judgment when voting.
3. Candidates for either office would not pair together on the same ticket.
4. The system as designed would rarely produce a winner, thus sending the election to Congress.[13]On these facts, scholars have described the intended role of the Electoral College as simply a body who would nominate candidates from which the Congress would then select a President and Vice President.[14]
[13] Chang, Stanley (2007). “Updating the Electoral College: The National Popular Vote Legislation”. Harvard Journal on Legislation 44 (205, at 208). Cambridge, MA: President and Fellows of Harvard College.[14] Berg-Andersson, Richard E. (September 17, 2000), “What Are They All Doing, Anyway?: An Historical Analysis of the Electoral College”, The Green Papers
Interesting, no? If this is the truer reasoning behind the Electoral College, it needs to be abolished immediately if you ask me.
But for the sake of argument, let’s assume the intention was true and they were simply looking out for Rhode Island and all future Rhode Islands, you know like Montana and Alaska. It’s still outdated and should be revised at minimum and dissolved at best.
How can we claim that each vote counts in America when it really doesn’t? How in the world can we risk the electoral votes falling opposite the popular vote? How do we excite the voters and get them to the polls when it’s so easy to conclude that one extra voter is unimportant in the grand scheme of things?
The argument for the smaller states? Let’s be realistic, when it comes to presidential numbers, these small states are window dressing. How many visits did either candidate make to these 3-pointer states compared to Ohio or Pennsylvania or Florida? It’s absurd to think this system gives smaller states an equal voice, it simply doesn’t.
All voters regardless of state matter in a popular vote. Even those in the remote, small-tier states, long overlooked by candidates and campaigns, benefit from the abolishment of the EC. Their vote would count just as much as a voter in big California or Michigan because each vote would carry the exact same amount of weight. Nevermore would we hear about candidates pulling out of x state because it was a foregone conclusion. There would be no more red states/blue state arguments. Just millions and millions of votes that actually matter for the first time. One voice – one vote.
In 2000, George W. Bush claimed the Presidency without the popular vote. Al Gore held over 500,000 more votes than Bush and yet was never sworn into office. How can we tell our young people that voting is a responsibility that must be prioritized when it could very well mean nothing when the counting is done. Imagine if you were one of those half-million people?
As far as I’m concerned, I was one of those people. My vote didn’t count in 2000, along with 543,894 of my closest friends. As much as I blame W for the state of things right now, perhaps those framers of the Constitution deserve a little of it as well.
It does us no good to dwell on the what-could-have-beens, but now is the time to think long and hard if this is the version of democracy we want to continue with. Is it?
5 comments
Comments feed for this article
October 28, 2008 at 10:58 am
Headless Mom
I’m with you that the current system needs at the least a serious overhaul. May I submit for you all of the western states that seemingly get no chance for their voice to be heard because the media is usually already predicting winners for the national race BEFORE our polls close? IMO they (media) should not be allowed to start any coverage, esp. any including numbers/results until after the last polling place closes in the west.
October 28, 2008 at 7:27 pm
anymommy
Thoughtful and thought provoking, as usual Amy. I agree, the electoral college system is outdated and for our current political system (two parties, party tickets), a popular, one man/woman, one vote system would be much better. In defense of our founding fathers though (I don’t know why, just because) they had a hard, hard fight getting all of the potential states to agree to the Constitution we all take for granted today. They made a lot of hard compromises. I think at the time, with the populations of the various colonies not quite so disparate, the electoral college was a compromise to protect smaller population states.
I also think they didn’t trust the general population. They considered themselves an educated elite and did not intend the average citizen to actually pick the president, only their local electoral college reps – and that to me is the best reason to change the system!!
Headless mom – Amen. That drives me bonkers. I get hopping mad when they start calling the election and half the country (geographically) hasn’t even finished voting.
October 29, 2008 at 1:48 pm
susan
The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided “battleground” states. In 2004 two-thirds of the visits and money were focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money went to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people were merely spectators to the presidential election. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule under which all of a state’s electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.
Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections.
In the past six decades, there have been six presidential elections in which a shift of a relatively small number of votes in one or two states would have elected (and, of course, in 2000, did elect) a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 21 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes — 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
October 29, 2008 at 1:49 pm
susan
The small states are the most disadvantaged of all under the current system of electing the President. Political clout comes from being a closely divided battleground state, not the two-vote bonus.
Small states are almost invariably non-competitive in presidential election. Only 1 of the 13 smallest states are battleground states (and only 5 of the 25 smallest states are battlegrounds).
Of the 13 smallest states, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Alaska regularly vote Republican, and Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC regularly vote Democratic. These 12 states together contain 11 million people. Because of the two electoral-vote bonus that each state receives, the 12 non-competitive small states have 40 electoral votes. However, the two-vote bonus is an entirely illusory advantage to the small states. Ohio has 11 million people and has “only” 20 electoral votes. As we all know, the 11 million people in Ohio are the center of attention in presidential campaigns, while the 11 million people in the 12 non-competitive small states are utterly irrelevant. Nationwide election of the President would make each of the voters in the 12 smallest states as important as an Ohio voter.
The fact that the bonus of two electoral votes is an illusory benefit to the small states has been widely recognized by the small states for some time. In 1966, Delaware led a group of 12 predominantly low-population states (North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Utah, Arkansas, Kansas, Oklahoma, Iowa, Kentucky, Florida, Pennsylvania) in suing New York in the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that New York’s use of the winner-take-all effectively disenfranchised voters in their states. The Court declined to hear the case (presumably because of the well-established constitutional provision that the manner of awarding electoral votes is exclusively a state decision). Ironically, defendant New York is no longer a battleground state (as it was in the 1960s) and today suffers the very same disenfranchisement as the 12 non-competitive low-population states. A vote in New York is, today, equal to a vote in Wyoming–both are equally worthless and irrelevant in presidential elections.
The concept of a national popular vote for President is far from being politically “radioactive” in small states, because the small states recognize they are the most disadvantaged group of states under the current system.
As of 2008, the National Popular Vote bill has been approved by a total of seven state legislative chambers in small states, including one house in Maine and both houses in Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont. It has been enacted by Hawaii.
October 29, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Maura
What anymommy said. (Thanks for taking the time to type that all out for me, anymommy!)