I’ll also point out that much of the interior of the country gets shafted by the current presidential election system.
Under a popular vote-based system, the hearty people of the land in South Dakota would have been equal to the wicked coastal Floridians in 2016 (Trump won both states by about 110,000 votes), but the electoral college gave coastal Florida nearly 10 times the electoral power for the same popular result!
“There’s a sucker born every minute.”
Are you joking? This makes no sense, and also has nothing to do with coast vs interior.
I’ve always thought the greater inequity is the primary system. The vast majority of the country doesn’t even have an opportunity to vote for their choice of candidate. That choice is made for them by people in Iowa and New Hampshire and a few other states.
That’s the point. The iniquities don’t protect “flyover country” from the mean ol’ coasts, because the actual iniquities are set up in completely unrelated ways to the presence or absence of oceans.
The current system needs some tweaking but I’m basically fine with it. All caucuses need to be eliminated. I do like the current system of starting small, allowing candidates to get their message out and get some experience campaigning. Flubbing a speech to the Kiwanis club isn’t fatal. And meeting one on one with voters and looking them in the eye when they tell you a tragic story is helpful to remember that all your actions affect real people. Having fewer deaths than anticipated in a pandemic is a good thing on the macro scale, but some of those dead might be the elderly group that you met at that café in Iowa.
And to the millions who never get a chance to vote in a meaningful primary? Why should they care that Bernie got to look a voter in Iowa in the eye? As it’s been my entire life most of the country does not get a say in who they want to run for President. What good is it if the candidate you want gets to start small and get their message out if they drop out long before your state gets to vote? I’m 52 and never have voted in a meaningful presidential primary. If I live to 102 I probably won’t ever vote in one. That is not a good system and it breeds a country of apathetic voters who have had their choices taken away.
Lots of people have meaningless votes for all sorts of races. If a Trumper moved into the apartment next to me, every single vote he cast would be useless.
The biggest mistakes this time around were the caucuses and not just the Iowa debacle. Nevada was a mess as well and slid under the radar because Bernie definitely won, it wasn’t close like Iowa.
California and TX jumping the gun to be part of Super Tuesday was a problem as well, way too many delegates at stake that day. I’m sure that was a factor in all the dropouts both before and after.
Finally, there was too short of a turnaround time between SC and Super Tuesday.
How is more people getting a say earlier a problem. That sounds like a solution.
Casting a vote for your choice of candidate is not meaningless just because other people around you don’t vote the same way. Even if your candidate doesn’t win maybe enough people will go that way that the parties won’t ignore your state and actually work to get your vote. Casting a vote in a primary in June after everyone has dropped out is meaningless. It’s like voting in a North Korean election.
I do completely agree about the caucuses. It’s a horrible way to pick a candidate.
We need some version of the “Delaware Plan” for primaries. With approval voting.
And apparently a whole bunch of them got together and drafted the Constitution. Don’t like it? There’s a lawful amendment process. Those suckers that drafted the Constitution built that right in. Imagine that.
Of course, the approval of amendments is also state based, so it runs into the same problems as the EC (and more so, since it isn’t at all aligned to population, each state being equal for a vote on an amendment). And I believe that the clause about 2 senators is not subject to amendment in any case.
Given the extreme polarization in the country, and the high bar to amending the Constitution, I don’t see any way to fix things. Of course, people happy with the status quo don’t see any *reason *to fix things.
Yes, a constitution built to induce southern colonies to join the Union with slaves counted as fractional people and Native Americans not counted at all. That’s some really kludged software! What was necessary then is intolerable now. We install luzers. Do you play poker where the low hand wins?
I summarized population vs electoral votes upthread. The US electoral system is a flop that won’t be fixed anytime soon. Enough GOPs won’t croak of COVID.
And women still lack legal equality with men. Imagine that.
Time for my standard reminder that it was the Northern states insisting on slaves being only 3/5s of person to reduce Southern influence.
And it just occurs to me that the not counting of untaxed Native Americans shows that all other non-citizens should be counted. The Founding Fathers (praise be unto them) obviously wanted everyone else counted or they wouldn’t have specifically excluded the natives.
It’s referred to as the 3/5 Compromise for a reason. It was no more the North insisting on zero than the South insisting on 1. Interestingly the Compromise pre-dates the Constitution in a way. There was a proposed amendment to the Articles of Confederation to tax each state based on its population. Not surprisingly the South insisted then that Slaves were property and should be counted at zero, the North at one. After agreement on 1/2 and 3/4 proposals could not be reached, the Congress agreed on 3/5. But this amendment was rejected by the States. (Agreement had to be unanimous.)
So it’s a bit difficult to argue that it was the North’s insistence on this matter. It was as many things in politics (used to be) a compromise.
Don’t forget that those 3/5 persons got Zero votes. Counting them as 3/5 instead of zero increased the voting power of the slave-owners.
Giving more people a say earlier means that campaigns have to spend a lot more money reaching all those millions of potential voters.
This massively favors well-funded candidates, and those with existing name recognition.
That little-known small state governor may have the ideal platform, message, resume, and demeanor to be president, but he/she just isn’t going to be able to compete in a simultaneous early CA/TX/NY primary against either the party elite with the massive war chest (capable of multiple national ad buys) and endorsements, or the reality TV star with the better initial name recognition (who doesn’t have to spend money for media exposure).
Starting with a small primary allows that lesser known candidate a chance to compete. If their message catches on and they actually win (or place strongly), then they get more media exposure and more funding. Enough to (hopefully) keep their campaign running on fumes through primary #2. They can potentially bootstrap their way up from there.
Of course, it doesn’t have to be Iowa every time, but primaries should start with small states, preferably with diverse populations and swing-state tenancies.
But it was a disagreement among racists that used black people as pawns for each of the white factions to compete for more power.
All the comments that people make whenever this comes up about how it was Northerners who wanted 3/5 or 1/2 or whatever, are really glossing over the fact that they were acting like racists, too. “But the North wanted it” is as completely out-of-touch of context as those arguments conservatives make about “well the Klan used to be filled with Democrats!” Being a Northerner in the 1790s or being a Democrat in the 1950s doesn’t make anyone NOT a racist. It’s just in this particular case, Northerners had a political incentive to dehumanize black people, so they jumped at the chance.
The trade-off has the president chosen by a minority of voters i.e. we install luzers. Consent of the governed? Pish. Let-em eat Twinkies.
The actual choice is made by the DNC and their “super delegates” at the convention, period. The Primary system is used to give the public the illusion that they can participate in the process.