Thursday, September 06, 2012

Whose Vox Is Gored?

According to The Hill: "Al Gore is calling for an end to the Electoral College — the system that cost him the presidency in 2000." (It probably cost him the presidency, but we'll never know--if we had direct elections, the candidates would have campaigned differently, though presumably the bombshell about Bush's DUI would still have come out the Thursday before the election, helping to drive millions of undecideds toward Gore.)

The Founders didn't think the President should be elected by the people, but changes in the Constitution have made this country more democratic, so it seems a logical evolution.  It won't happen, though, since it's not in the interest of too many small states.  But if it did, would our system be better served?

I suppose it would help guarantee the President has the confidence of the public, since he'd at least have the most votes. (Not necessarily the majority--Bill Clinton never had that, for instance.) But that's not quite Gore's complaint: "I’ve seen how these states are written off and ignored, and people are effectively disenfranchised in the presidential race."

Let's leave aside how casually people toss around the word "disenfranchised" these days.  It is true when you've got the Electoral winner takes all, candidates will concentrate on the swing states, wherever they may be.  But if it were all about votes, wouldn't the candidates ignore all those wide open spaces in the middle of the country where the population is sparse?  The candidates would spend most of their time in the corridors from Boston to DC, Cleveland to Minnesota, San Francisco to San Diego, and pop around a lot in Texas and Florida.  A whole bunch of states would simply be airplane stops.

As long as the President has to win a majority of the country--whether electoral votes or direct ones--the candidates will concentrate on where they can do their campaign the most good, and ignore a lot else.  The people who are ignored will just have to be happy they can vote for Senators (which the Founders also didn't like), Representatives and a whole lot of local stuff.

4 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hmm. Given a choice, repeal the 16th or the 17th. Hmm.

3:00 AM, September 06, 2012  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

or the 2d

4:05 AM, September 06, 2012  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Excellent idea. I think you should devote all your treasure to making it so. Get your party to do so, too.

And if that doesn't work, riot.

10:07 AM, September 07, 2012  
Anonymous Lawrence King said...

If you want to enfranchise people, eliminate gerrymandering.

It is possible to design a system in which every American has some meaningful representation in a Congress with 535 people (or more, if that's feasible). But when a third of a billion people elect one man president, no system can give all those voters meaningful representation.

By the way, the 2000 election is one of the best arguments for the electoral college. It was a photo-finish, leading to a recount nightmare in Florida. If we eliminated the electoral college, then a photo finish would create a recount nightmare in every single state, simultaneously.

8:22 PM, September 07, 2012  

Post a Comment

<< Home

web page hit counter