Which party--or set of policies--does the electoral college advantage?
Neither.
How we elect a president is an interesting, important issue. It has become partisan, which destroys America's ability to consider the pros and cons. Too bad.
 |
| Calls for popular vote for president. |
After all, in the elections of 2000 and 2016 the Democrat won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote and therefore the election. The implication is that the process of electing president by electoral vote gives advantage to the Republicans. This is cross-checked by noting that the electoral vote system gives extra weight to states with small populations. Reliably red Wyoming and Idaho are cited as examples of states extra weight in an electoral college system, as was intended in the original Constitution.
Red. Donald Trump, who had earlier said the electoral college was a disaster is now tweeting that it is a great thing.
 |
| Trump: keep electoral college |
The electoral college is becoming a "Republican idea."
I don't consider the matter partisan.
The winner-takes-all system of allocating a state's electoral votes make it approximately as good for Democrats as it is for Republicans, maybe better. Currently Democrats tend to cluster in cities, and cities dominate states, as Trump notes. But he errs in how that effects the electoral college vote. In a winner-take-all state system, it means close states can tip to Democrats.
The 2000 and 2016 elections were very close. It would have been just as easy for Democrats to have won states narrowly as it is for them to have lost them narrowly. The butterfly ballot, which confused voters in Palm Beach County, Florida, in 2000 had more effect on the outcome than any particular advantage given small states in the electoral college. All Florida's votes went to George Bush, not Al Gore.
The winner-takes-all system of allocating a state's electoral votes make it approximately as good for Democrats as it is for Republicans, maybe better. Currently Democrats tend to cluster in cities, and cities dominate states, as Trump notes. But he errs in how that effects the electoral college vote. In a winner-take-all state system, it means close states can tip to Democrats.
The 2000 and 2016 elections were very close. It would have been just as easy for Democrats to have won states narrowly as it is for them to have lost them narrowly. The butterfly ballot, which confused voters in Palm Beach County, Florida, in 2000 had more effect on the outcome than any particular advantage given small states in the electoral college. All Florida's votes went to George Bush, not Al Gore.
 |
| Democrats voted for Buchanan |
Stop-loss on partisan misbehavior by any one state.
States try to stack the deck. Some states are sufficiently partisan that there is no political cost to gaming the system for ones team, and indeed there might be serious consequences for not doing so. Think blue California and red Wyoming or Alabama.
States try to stack the deck. Some states are sufficiently partisan that there is no political cost to gaming the system for ones team, and indeed there might be serious consequences for not doing so. Think blue California and red Wyoming or Alabama.
States have a great deal of control in how they allocate their electoral votes. It doesn't need to be "fair" or consistent.
This can be gamed. In the run-up to the 2016 election Republicans in Pennsylvania realized a strategy was available to them. They controlled the governor's office and legislature. They had the power. They use a winner-take-all electoral college allocation. They fully expected the Democratic candidate for president to win the statewide vote, so all Pennsylvania's electoral votes would go to the Democrat. But since they had done a very successful partisan gerrymander of the congressional districts, packing Democrats into relatively few districts, it was plausible that about 13 of their 19 congressional districts would have Republican majorities in the presidential race if they changed state law to allocate by congressional district. The Democrat could win the state but only get about 8 electoral votes, instead of all 21. Republicans would get 13 votes, even when losing the state.
It turned out they didn't proceed with this, and lucky for Republicans they didn't, because Trump actually carried Pennsylvania.
Right now, some states--ones with Democratic majorities in their legislatures--are discussing requiring additional qualifications for a candidate to have access to the ballot, i.e. releasing ones tax returns. Managing to dis-enfranchise a candidate would have an effect on the whole vote count. If California were to manage to prohibit Trump's votes from being counted, it would be dispositive for the election, and it might well be soundly popular in California.
However, one could easily imagine a bright red southern state--Alabama or Mississippi perhaps--making an equivalent requirement, saying perhaps that a presidential candidate needed to prove American birth and that, in the considered opinion of their legislature, Barrack Obama's Hawaii birth certificate was unpersuasive, and therefore he was not permitted to be on the ballot.
There is a problem with a popular vote.
States run their own elections and there are motives and opportunities to game the system. In the current circumstance, there is a stop-loss. Partisan games in one state only effect one state, but in a popular vote system, especially in a close election, one state can poison the entire voting number.
It turned out they didn't proceed with this, and lucky for Republicans they didn't, because Trump actually carried Pennsylvania.
Right now, some states--ones with Democratic majorities in their legislatures--are discussing requiring additional qualifications for a candidate to have access to the ballot, i.e. releasing ones tax returns. Managing to dis-enfranchise a candidate would have an effect on the whole vote count. If California were to manage to prohibit Trump's votes from being counted, it would be dispositive for the election, and it might well be soundly popular in California.
However, one could easily imagine a bright red southern state--Alabama or Mississippi perhaps--making an equivalent requirement, saying perhaps that a presidential candidate needed to prove American birth and that, in the considered opinion of their legislature, Barrack Obama's Hawaii birth certificate was unpersuasive, and therefore he was not permitted to be on the ballot.
There is a problem with a popular vote.
States run their own elections and there are motives and opportunities to game the system. In the current circumstance, there is a stop-loss. Partisan games in one state only effect one state, but in a popular vote system, especially in a close election, one state can poison the entire voting number.
Ignored States and battleground states.
The current situation divides states into two categories, "safe" and "battleground." Smart strategists realize that some states aren't "in play" and therefore are essentially ignored. This makes the issues of the few close battleground states hyper-important. When the upper midwest is in the battleground then the issues of rustbelt manufacturing are addressed, and the issues of particular interest in California, perhaps housing affordability, are ignored.
This skews the national policy debate and policy solutions. It matters. We have ethanol in unleaded gasoline--made from corn--not because turning food into vehicle fuel is great public policy, but because Iowa is a corn-producing state and it is an early decider of presidential candidates. Candidates go there and take the "corn pledge."
The fact that the battleground states in any one election come down to about 6 to 8 of the 50, mean that voters in the vast majority of the country are essentially ignored, with the effect that a message is delivered and received, that the votes of most people are irrelevant, hurting voter participation.
This would be an argument in favor of a popular vote. Your vote counts. Everyone has buy- in. You choose the president.
But wait.
But wait.
A counter-argument would be that it is a big country, with some minority concerns that need to be given thought so that the entire country gets presidential buy-in. In a popular vote system candidates will focus on the people easiest to reach, i.e. people in larger communities and media markets, but the current system requires candidates to pay attention to rural voters. Why? Because there are some rural voters in the battleground states. Those isolated minorities in a battleground state are stand-ins for similar minorities in the ignored states.
Prediction:
Sometime in the next few years, a Democrat will win a close election thanks to the quirks of the electoral college, having won close majorities in battleground states, but having lost the popular vote. That will cause a switch in the polarity of support and opposition to a popular vote. People care more about outcomes than process.
At that point the general support for a popular vote will be de-partisanized briefly, and that will allow people once again to consider the pros and cons without blinders. There is a kind of logic to every vote counting equally, and of and directly electing the president. The direction of history is moving in that direction.
At that point the general support for a popular vote will be de-partisanized briefly, and that will allow people once again to consider the pros and cons without blinders. There is a kind of logic to every vote counting equally, and of and directly electing the president. The direction of history is moving in that direction.
But it won't happen until then.
2 comments:
The whole discussion is pandering to Democrats who are bitter about the closeness of the election and would be unnecessary if they had managed 1% more votes. Whomever is advising the candidates to push this issue should be fired for incompetence. If it's even possible to amend the constitution it probably would take decades.
Let's concentrate on more relevant issues and restrain ourselves from musing about stuff that really doesn't matter.
Peter,
You must have missed the Constitutional Law seminar at Harvard.
The President is the President of the union of the "United States" not the President of the American citizens who vote in state elections. The States elect the President through the Electoral College. Nothing needs to be changed. Delaware and Rhode Island and Alaska and Wyoming are over represented the the Senate. New York, Texas and California are under represented. I don't hear a hue and cry to change this.
Post a Comment