I'm against retaining the Electoral College process in the US. On this issue I am open to debate though, so I was interested to read arguments in favor of the current system in the WSJ opinion piece titled
"Don't Mess With the Electoral College". But I was very disappointed by the weak points made by its author, David Lewis Schaefer.
First, he focuses on the "National Popular Vote" scheme, which wouldn't get rid of the Electoral College system as such (as that would require a Constitutional amendment), but would rather have states designate their electoral votes to whoever won the national popular vote. For me then, he is arguing against a straw man.
But even his specific arguments seem weak to me. He seems to think it a good thing that the current system "favors the two party approach". Why not give third parties a chance? He writes:
Today voters have little incentive to vote for candidates nominated by minor parties such as the Libertarians, the Greens or Ross Perot's 1992 Reform Party. Since winning even 30% of the vote nationwide is likely to yield very few (if any) electoral votes, most voters wind up choosing one of the two major-party candidates.
Those who think that fact a vice should consider the alternative. Under NPV, states commit their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of how small a percentage of the overall vote that candidate wins. Thus a candidate whom a large majority of Americans finds highly unacceptable might become the next president. That's because the NPV would encourage more minor-party or "insurgent" candidates who'd been denied the nomination of one of the major parties.
At most, this is an argument against the NPV approach. Ditching the Electoral College could be done in various ways, including a system that demanded a first round followed by a run-off between the top two or three candidates. Also, it seems unlikely that many third-parties would find greast success overnight, as the Electoral College is only one part of the process that is rigged against them. Odds are, for the foreseeable future, the Dems and Reps would continue to dominate the scene.
He also asserts that "It also ensures that the winner will have geographically broad (rather than merely sectional) support, and will be at least acceptable to the vast majority of the electorate." So what? Why does it matter that the winner have "geographically broad support"? If more people prefer another candidate, then that other candidate should be the winner. Period.
Another of his arguments:
Another problem: If vote totals are close, the losing candidate has a strong incentive to demand recounts or challenge voting procedures in every state, regardless of how badly he lost. After all, "every vote counts." Imagine the Florida debacle of 2000 spread across dozens of states, every four years.
This is exaggeration. "Every four years"? You prefaced this with "If vote totals are close...", and that doesn't happen every time. But besides that, if it took vote recounts, even across the entire nation, to get it right, then so be it. The alternative is the person who gets less votes winning the race. How is that better?
Then he adds this nonsensical closing:
Is there really any need to abolish the existing system, just because candidates who "lose" the popular vote by a small margin sometimes come out on top in the electoral vote? The true purpose of an electoral system is not to ensure that the presidential candidate preferred by 51% of the electorate is chosen. Rather, it is to choose an effective leader whom even most supporters of the losing major-party candidate will regard as tolerable -- so that the government is perceived as representing the people as a whole, not just victorious partisans. That's why leading-party candidates typically "run toward the middle" during the general election campaign. In a two-party race, you can't win an election without demonstrating your acceptability to a large swath of the public.
Huh? "...just because candidates lose the popular vote by small margin"? Why are in favor of arbitrarily elevating the loser to the status of winner? His answer is ridiculous: "Rather, it is to choose an effective leader whom even most supporters of the losing major-party candidate will regard as tolerable -- so that the government is perceived as representing the people as a whole, not just victorious partisans." It would seem that, in the abstract, if the person who gets 49% of the vote is "tolerable" by your standards, then so would the person who got 51% of the vote. So by what reason do you still go for the one with 49%? And lastly, candidates "run to the middle", not because of the Electoral College, but because that is where the biggest votes are. The same would be true if we had a straight popularity majority vote system, or one with stages/runoff rounds.
I'm still not convinced that retaining the Electoral College is the right thing to do. I would argue we should not have it, and that we should have either a majority vote system or a plurality vote system with one or two runoff rounds if a certain threshold percentage of votes is not obtained. The benefits of this would be at least the following:
- Third parties might finally have a chance to be heard (at least this one hurdle would be removed for them.)
- It would mean we never have someone who loses the popular vote being elected president.
- It would mean every vote would count equally. Right now, I know my vote in NY doesn't matter because the Democrat will easily win the state and hence get all of NY's (rather sizeable) electoral votes.
- It would reduce or eliminate all of the silliness of the news coverage and debates on a state by state basis. Stop wasting time and money -- just count the votes.
The only semi-plausible argument I've heard against this approach is one of the original arguments in favor of the Electoral College -- that it helps preserve the importance of smaller states. That is, it encourages candidates to visit and campaign in more states, rather than just focus on the biggest states and cities. But the EC system actually has perverse effects in this regard, as it encourages candidates to relatively ignore very large states that are undoubtedly going to go their way (like NY for Democrats). How is that fair? And it also leads to candidates spending more time on issues of interest to just particular states that are "in play". Presidential candidates aren't running to be "President of the states that are up for grabs", they are running to be President of the entire country.
And even if this was a valid point in the early days of the country, when almost all campaign-relations were local, it has almost no weight today. Most people get most of their input on who to vote for from newspapers, magazines, TV, the Internet, etc. -- not from the silly hand-shaking, baby-kissing events if and when the candidate happens by our village square. Save all that money wasted criss-crossing the nation, and put it to better use on other aspects of campaigning. The inefficiencies due to unintended consequences of the EC system are astounding.
Oh, and while I'm on this general topic, can we also please get rid of the silly system of having some states hold political primaries significantly before others? How is that fair? What gives people in Iowa and New Hampshire the right to effectively rule out some party candidates before the rest of us have had our say? All states should hold political primaries on the same day, or at least the same week, so that this negative effect is eliminated. Again, if you are an egalitarian when it comes to political rights, then this is the only fair approach to take.
Labels: us_gov_politics