It doesn’t make it less democratic either, was my point.
Because we’re a federal republic of states, that share sovereignty with the nation-state.
We could do it that way, certainly. I’d rather we didn’t, though.
Why? How does the nation benefit from retaining the EC?
Of course. Most of the Founders loathed the common man but held dear the Lockian principle that legitimacy must be grounded in the consent of the governed.
That and, of course, that one man’s rube is another man’s prophet.
That’s why democracy is indeed the “best worst choice,” and why current efforts to undermine it through disenfranchisement schemes should be fought tooth and nail.
-
It reinforces shared sovereignty between state and nation. I resist efforts to diminish the sovereignty of states, because they are an important check on federal power.
-
The most populous states already enjoy a huge advantage of influence in the federal legislature. In the spirit of the Connecticut Compromise, and largely for the same reasons, the Electoral College blunts this advantage somewhat in the matter of election of the president.
It works a little bit as a brake on the mass commoditization of politics. Currently politicians at least make a cursory attempt to appeal to a broad spectrum of interests within the purple states. Remove that and presidential elections become even more explicitly about pandering to the base.
Granted, it’s going that direction anyway, especially as the GOP has decided its best strategy to win is to simply stop Dem voters from voting. But eliminating the EC only exacerbates the problem and eliminates one of the few cross-cutting political forces left to oppose naked ideological warfare.
Yes, if democracy is measured by a sliding scale of how much power is in the hands of people, then the electoral college is less democratic than a direct popular vote. In fact, the electoral college is intentionally anti-democratic.
In the real world, the idea of the United States being a federation of sovereign states has become a polite fiction, and one that is less and less worth maintaining. Yes, for certain practical purposes, it makes sense to organize local government on the basis of semi-sovereign entities. But for fundamental issues of governance, such as the selection of the holders of office of national government, the idea that the states as sovereign entities should choose the national executive is an outdated idea.
We as individuals – culturally, socially, and economically – do not interact with each other as citizens of 50 sovereign entities. We are all Americans, citizens, nationals, and residents of a single national entity, and each of us should have an equal voice in choosing national officeholders.
In fact, I think that the representation districts for the U.S. House of Representatives should also not be drawn on state-by-state grounds, but on a national level on an equal population basis, ignoring state boundaries. I’m not entirely sure what to do about the U.S. Senate, though.
Also, a national recount would be even more of a clusterfuck than a state recount.
Agreed.
Yes, I’d hate to see Presidents winning office on a “tons of pork and benefits to New York, California, and Texas!” platform. We humble flyover states still deserve a voice.
I’m hoping that strategy is a temporary one while the GOP gets its shit together, we need a strong, viable opposition party.
Just to be clear, are you opposed to electing electors, or to the apportionment of electors, or both?
I respectfully disagree, at bottom, our system is built to prevent federal tyranny, and sovereign states are a key part of that. Their sovereignty has been reduced already, further erosion could be dangerous.
Nay, I say, nay.
If elections for federal offices were under federal control, we wouldn’t need recounts. Somehow, every other civilized democracy manages to count votes correctly the first time.
As opposed to now, where they spend an inordinate amount of time in New Hampshire, Iowa, and a handful of swing states, while ignoring everyone else? This is not a serious evaluation of the situation. And there’s no reason to believe that New York, California, and Texas would be the benefit of increased attention any more than they are now. In fact, it would be swing voters all over the country, rather than just swing voters in three or four states.
I’m opposed to the electoral college, period. There should be no “electors” in our system other than ordinary citizens voting on an equal basis. The president should be chosen by direct popular election.
In the modern world, we have other kinds of tyranny to worry about rather than just federal tyranny, like school board tyranny and condo board tyranny.
Oooo, I’m scared.
What is actually true is that in our current system, state and local governments are subject to a lot less scrutiny and oversight. They are also comprised by people with on average less experience, less expertise, less skill, and less education. They are more beholden to extremists, lobbyists, and moneyed interests. There is no longer any special virtue in favoring state government.
Yes, the status quo is preferable.
Ok, thanks for clarifying. I’d be fine with removing the actual human electors from the process and making the electoral votes automatic, or with proportional electoral votes within a state.
We can worry about those too. Your school board needs checks and balances too.
State and local, eh? Time to have the federal government in charge of my local sewers and stoplights?
Transferring state power to the federal level would simply shift those less-talented bureaucrats to the federal level too.
The point was that requiring everyone to volunteer for public service before they could vote would weed out the self-serving. And while there may technically be an elite the fact that this elite has to let anyone join who wishes to do so eliminates any meaningful accusations of elitism. Same thing with tyranny - how can there be a tyranny, when anyone can get in?
That’s at least twice now that you’ve responded with a mere contradiction. Would you care to offer at least some rationale?
Show me someone who has made such a claim.
To my earlier comments, I add this: The Electoral College in no way acts as a check on the federal government by sovereign states. It in no way preserves any degree of sovereignty that the states don’t already exercise. It cannot prevent tyranny. It does not force politicians to pay attention to all regions and voters uniformly. The sole thing that the Electoral College does is give some citizens more power than others, based on nothing more than their location.
Certainly. “Swing” states are much more variable than populous ones. Look at 1996, for example: Kentucky, Tennessee, Missouri, Florida, and Louisiana went to Clinton. In 2000 and 2004, all went to Bush. In 2008, Florida went to Obama, the others to McCain.
During that same span of time, California went from 54 electoral votes to 55. Florida went from 25 to 27. Texas went from 32 to 34. How a state votes is a question of the moment; compare 1984 to 1992. How populous a state is changes less over time, thus, any undo favors sprinkled on swing states will move around more than favors sprinkled on large states.
I assumed it followed from your holding state and local government to be automatically inferior to federal government. If I overreached, I apologize.
It does, in that it’s a show of that sovereignty.
In and of itself, no. But it’s part of a federal system that accomplishes these things, and dismantling it might also dismantle that system, which unlike you, I hold to be beneficial.
Eh? Florida is a populous state.
In any event, the Ninth Amendment and selective incorporation exist independent of Article II. You can amend the latter with zero effect on the former.
I know; point was, swing states are less likely to form a privileged group that endures for decades on the basis of favorable treatment from politicians than populous states are, because the latter condition is more durable.
True; and I’d feel much more comfortable with erosion of state sovereignty if it hadn’t been accompanied by overexpansion of federal power and the near-abandonment of the Tenth Amendment via such means as overly-broad readings of the Commerce Clause. State power only matters relative to federal power.
Okay, but Acsenray’s point remains: the electoral college does nothing to protect state sovereignty. Presidential candidates don’t pander to state legislatures.
Yes…I have on more than one occasion. Some are tyrannies and others are extremely lax. Far better for the individual who has the right to move from one neighborhood to another than one federal HOA tinkering in everyone’s lives at every level. There is simply no escape from the federal system in place.
I concede that it doesn’t do so directly, but indirectly, by affirming that the power to elect the President lies with the states. Call it symbolic if nothing else.
They do pander to states, however, and I argue that this state of affairs would be worse with a direct popular vote.
It couldn’t possibly be, because the candidates would be targeting swing voters as individuals, which, when you eliminate the gerrymandering created by state-by-state voting, is much more scattered across the country. Every state that has a generous population of swing voters would get attention. And that would be more states than end up as swing states in any one election now. Of course, there will be some places like Wyoming or Alaska that still won’t get much attention, but they don’t get much attention now, so there’s no loss.
And that’s still assuming that “attention” during a presidential on a state or regional basis actually has any value, whether tangible or symbolic. I don’t believe it does. And whatever value it theoretically might have is vastly disproportional to the fact that the system makes individual voters unequal.