If each state is allocated EC votes proportional to it’s population, and it’s EC delegates are allocated in proportion to the votes cast, surely that produces an equivalent result to holding a national poll?
Except that the number of voters cast is not proportional to the eligible voting population. Which IMHO is the nub of the political problem, disengagement and disenfranchisement.
Agree the best-quick-fix answer is proportional allocation each states EC votes rather than winner take all. That also means elections are likely to be more diverse, closer and more hard fought. US had been brought up on a political diet of clear winners. History would suggests that with all those much vaunted “checks & balances” with closer election results American will become an even more intractable quagmire unless the planets align and somebody snags a filibuster proof majority.
That’s the whole point, there are a million traits with a 90/10 or 80/20 distribution, and we’re all in the minority of at least several. So we have to limit the potential tyranny of the majority.
The idea that rule by large cities will distort things doesn’t require everyone in New York vote in lockstep. It only implies a bias. People in big cities have a political bias for big city issues, whichever way they vote. So think of the EC as a crude way to correct for that statistical bias, by weighting votes in a regional way. Requiring a broad geographical base of support (instead of a deep but narrow base in a few populated areas) also moderates the positions of presidential candidates.
Why is the artificial creation of a clear EC win based on a razor thin win at the ballot box considered a good thing?
Why is a close election or a recount of votes a nightmare scenario?
The US has an unenviable track record of gridlock, shutdowns, fiscal cliffs and games of political chicken way in excess of other democracies who take the reality of close/disputed elections or hung parliaments in their stride, admittedly some are better than others.
Why does the US bang on about it’s “worlds oldest democracy” credentials when it’s institutions lack the maturity to be able to handle a close or disputed result?
Being able to declare the election result quickly seems to be bizarrely premature.
You take so bloody long to get to polling day, why for all the dammed rush to declare a winner, any winner?
Isn’t governance for the rest of the four year term of more importance than handing the keys to the executive washroom within 24 hours of the first exit poll?
Which means you consciously hand disproportionate representation to the politically involved/savvy/establishment to the disadvantage of the less involved and provide a rolled gold incentive to widen the gap.
Is there any wonder you have a disgruntled, possibly majority political base buying populist cant from carpetbaggers?
So I don’t agree with your adjudication of the premise.
The US is not a true democracy. Just as there are checks on government power, there are checks on the power of the majority. Majority rule is not a feature, it’s a bug.
Rather than “majority rule”, the US’s version of democracy is more like “a whole bunch of minorities trying to peacefully coexist”. Which is a much more admirable goal, in my opinion.
Clearly. No one in this thread or any other is seriously suggesting that we suddenly turn all decisions into pure majority vote. We have our two houses of congress, we have all the checks and balances between the three branches of the government, etc, etc, etc. And for the most part, that system has worked great, and mostly continues to work great (current partisan gridlock notwithstanding).
But the presidential election is in a weird special place all by itself. Back in the day, it wasn’t an election at all as far as the average citizen was concerned. States would select electors, who would fill up the electoral college, which would then vote.
Over time it’s morphed into something that feels like direct democracy, but isn’t… it’s kind of in the uncanny valley. That is, we will all go to a voting booth. We will see the names of the two candidates. We will pick one of them. We will be exhorted by all and sundry about how casting our ballot is so important, how we will be engaged in our near-sacred duty of exercising our franchise. And while we’re voting for the president, we’ll vote for a senator (most votes within the state wins), a congressman (most votes within the congressional district wins), various statewide and local positions (almost all of them won by whoever gets the most popular vote).
But among all of that, the vote for the president is the only one that works in this really oddball fashion.
Your alarmist predictions about majority of the big cities aside, the US system would still work absolutely fine if we had direct popular election of the president and the system were otherwise identical to how it currently is. The biggest difference wouldn’t be that suddenly big cities dominated Wyoming, it would be that suddenly no one gave a rats ass about Florida and Ohio and Pennsylvania to the exclusion of Texas and California and New York. Suddenly, getting red votes in CA would matter, and getting blue votes in Texas would matter.
It’s basically impossible to predict what all would actually change, and as I’ve said many times I’m not actually particularly endorsing such a change. But your level of alarm at the possibility of having one nationwide popular vote election for one position (albeit the most important one) every four years, and how that’s going to just lead us directly to tyranny-of-the-majority-yada-yada-yada-big-cities-yada-yada is just bizarre.
Only in the same sense that Congressional allocation does. Each district gets the same weight in the House, regardless of their turnout. The people who don’t make it out to vote are still supposed to be represented.
But for the EC, I was thinking about other factors that could bias the reading of the will of the people. Suppose there’s a massive blizzard across five northern blue states, and actual turnout there is halved. A strict national popular vote tally might swing the election to the Republican, where the preponderance of states’ peoples actually favored the Democrat.
I do not know what the real stats are, but I would predict that regions with a smaller population density also have a smaller social-media representation. I’d like to see some concrete data on this, but my opinion is that, if a guy lives in a small town and only sees 45 people on a regular basis, he is not as likely to have a really large number of FB friends. Sociability is an personal trait, responsive to the environment.
(And, just in case anyone doesn’t grok, I’m talking about correlations, not “every case.” I’m sure there are a handful of people who are very isolated in real life who are hugely active on FB. But my bet is, with a positive constant of correlation, the more real-world social life you have, the more your social-medium social life will be.)
Haven’t you been watching for the past 6 months?
A populist has engaged the previously disengaged. Those who were empowered as a consequence their prior disengagement didn’t see it coming.
The majority of voters determining the outcome is the consequence of democracy.
The feature of democracy is that of being better than the alternatives in delivering good governance.
Except that no one is. We’re talking about states, because the constitution limits us to talking about states.
There are isolated counties within California that could – and perhaps should – benefit from a similar kind of social compensation. But we don’t get to do that, because the constitution says we can’t.
If an amendment were proposed that granted a similar kind of compensation to really isolated counties, I’d probably be in favor of it. (And you, rightly, would ask why the artificial atomic unit of “counties” was used as a division!)
I certainly agree with that.
And, while it’s none of my beeswax, I wouldn’t be advocating a straight up national poll, whether as first past the post or preferential, rather proportional within the state/regions/electorates.
I think a more interesting version of the Electoral College is organizing electors by demographic rather than locale. So depending on what you are, you vote for electors in different categories. So there’s be a scientist elector, an academia elector, a blue collar elector, a black elector, a christian elector and so on. Of course, local electors would still exist as well, since where you live is a valid demographic that has its own problems.
This is purely in theory, though. In practice it wouldn’t work because it would be a big political question whether a given demographic should get an elector, whether it’s valid. It would be too easy to stuff electors in biased places (in principle you wouldn’t want electors based on beliefs, but rather characteristics like race, and profession, but it would be straightforward to make an elector base that’s effectively “global warming denier” electors and the like). And it’s easy to disenfranchise people, like should trans-people have their own elector, or is a lump LGBT elector sufficient? Should first-generation immigrants have their own elector, or just vote with the “area-of-origin-American” elector? Both?
I like it in vague principle, to represent the views of different demographics, but in practice it has some problems that likely can’t be fixed.
I’m puzzled as to why you think that merely sharing a skin color or sexual orientation means one would share an ideology. Demographics aren’t hive minds.
I think it’s supposed to be more like a delegate thing, where the elector votes the way the majority/plurality of his represented group did. Problem is, you’d also have to have proportional representation of those groups, which is a wee bit too complex for an election, and would likely greatly increase the number of electors. And then there’s the issue of who decides/classifies the various groups and how they do it. In other words, not workable in the slightest.
@octopus:
There are examples of something like that out there though, “reserved political positions”. Usually in places that have had historical contentious divisions along some demographic divide. A western example would be Belgium that reserves specific numbers of Minister positions and Senate seats for either French or Dutch/Flemmish Belgians. India reserves some parliamentary seats for “untouchables”.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
It’s certainly possible that there are demographic groups in the USA today which “deserve” to have their voices “loudened” in some sense during presidential elections. And if we were limited to doing that loudening purely on a state by state fashion, it’s conceivable that such a process might have a net benefit.
But there’s no particular reason to think that there’s any correlation between those who “deserve” loudening and people who live in small-population states. Maybe we’d be better off if farmers got their voices slightly loudened in presidential elections. And maybe Wyoming has lots of farmers. And Wyoming is the state that gets loudened the most. So, yay, the system works? But that’s not the system working, that’s us being lucky. Maybe in 100 years time the demographics will have changed and Wyoming will still have a small population but they’ll be nothing but Google employees who live and work at the big data center out in middle of the wasteland that is now Wyoming (due to global warming), and they’ll still have their voices loudened, even though there are way more Google employees than farmers, but now all the nation’s farmers live in California and Texas, and they get tyranny-of-the-majoritied into silence because of the big cities in their state which are full of, you guessed it, Google employees.
The constitution and the whole great compromise business give Wyoming a louder per-capita voice in presidential elections than California. It just does. It’s not fair or good or just, it’s just the way it is.
It’s also worth pointing out that the structure of presidential elections makes this regional inequity feel much more unfair than other similar things. For instance, everything that we’re saying here is arguably true about the Senate. Wyomingans have WAY more per capita influence in the senate than Californians. But in the Senate, it’s 100% clear what’s going on. Wyoming elects two senators. California elects two senators. In Wyoming they vote for their senators. In California we vote for our senators. It may or may not be fair, but at least it’s totally unambiguous what’s going on, and there’s a clear and direct historical reason for it.
But in a presidential election, people all over the US go into polling booths on the same day, and choose between the same candidates, and all of our votes our counted, and someone is going to win… except that some people’s votes basically count 20 times more than others. Yes, obviously anyone with a good knowledge of civics and history realizes that this is due to the same underlying tension that gives us the “unfair” senate to begin with. But because the presidential election, which started out with no popular vote at all, has morphed into what we have today, we end up in a situation which is in some ways a bizarre mockery of democracy.