Democrats who support the electoral college

[The_Doctor]

I oppose changes to the Electoral College. I’m going to lay out why and it’s a different argument than the traditional GOP arguments. I think I can offer a new perspective (aimed at Virginia and others who have been debating this).

I think the Electoral College is essential to our national political stability. I think in fact it is the key behind our enduring realignments and promoting a stable government that lasts decades. They force the creation of two grand coalitions to square off - usually, one ruling coalition and one minority coalition, as the states rarely change overnight (or in sufficient enough quantity to shift the College permanently; when they do, that’s a realignment). In turn, that creates a downballot effect of forcing grand coalitions to exist (ergo the Democrats and Republicans).


For instance, the Electoral College ratified Jefferson’s 1800 victory and the Southern Democrats, a coalition that lasted until 1860. Ditto Lincoln’s Republicans until 1932. The Electoral College promotes long running ruling coalitions and minority coalitions to face off but with solid defined ideological parameters. Since the states themselves rarely change their political profile overnight, this promotes a stable political system and lessens upheavals and radical governments. I think that has been a key factor in promoting our stable politics.

For instance, the New Deal was allowed to ferment for decades before it became a reality. The Electoral College incorporated the Populist Party into the Democratic and Republican Parties (and ultimately led to the 1912 election, where the Democrats incorporated all the Populist and progressive planks). We might have been worse off if in 1896, the Bryan Democratic Party had taken all the planks of silver and run as a radical party instead of the decades long transformation that allowed the progressives to refine and hone their agenda.

So, in that vein of thought, I think the Electoral College forces the creation of two grand coalitions that square off. The ruling majority coalition and the minority coalition. They allow the majority to rule for decades with checks and balances within the system and opposition from the minority coalition. Instead of one niche party ruling the country with 30-35% of the vote, we see coalitions ruling with, generally 45-55% of the vote. The College forces grand coalitions, and diffuses the power of radicals within the coalition.

I also have come to oppose IRV voting. Here’s the reason. Third parties have played an important part in American history, particularly in transitioning a minority coalition into becoming a majority coalition. The Populist Party of 1892, the Bull Moose Party of 1912, and the Progressive candidacy of Robert LaFollette all paved the way for the election of Franklin Roosevelt. Strom Thurmond’s 1948 candidacy, George Wallace’s 1968 candidacy led to Reagan’s 1980 realignment. Third parties are an important signal, especially to the minority coalition to incorporate their thinking and to take steps to become the majority coalition.

In short, I would change very little in the Electoral College or the way we elect Presidents. I think we’re near perfect. Redistricting might be another kettle of fish, but I oppose any changes to the Electoral College.

(Also, I’m  a registered anti-Trump Republican).

Lastly, a provocative thought. The Sanders wing of the Democratic Party, through the Electoral College’s mechanisms, must now review their ideology and platform to figure out how to appeal to 270+ worth of electoral votes and to appeal to a broad swath of states. That alone might create a workable progressive ideology.

[The_Doctor]

I would also contend the Constitution worked out perfectly in 2016 in expressing the will of the voters and appropriately managing the winning and losing coalitions in 2016. And I would contend liberals and Democrats alike should continue to support the Electoral College and Constitution.  It would go a long way to stopping Trump.

IRV, for the record, might alleviate some of the damage done by ending the Electoral College - but I argue it’s not worth it and doesn’t solve the value of third parties helping the coalition blocs shift. Anyway, abandoning the Electoral College would allow the Trumpkins to abandon their fellow Republicans and create a third party that would win the election with 35-40% of the vote and maybe even rule in the House with a plurality. The electoral college at the moment forces the Trumpkins to work with normal Republicans in the same party, which is crippling them and styming them from governing.

Going forward, Trump must win more than his 46% of the vote to win re-election in 2020.  That requires him to assemble a coalition and that’s going to be rather difficult. Democrats should embrace the Electoral College to stop Trump and to force the GOP to assemble a working majority coalition. If they can’t, they’ll win the election. A ton of the GOP’s problems right now is that their coalition is inherently unstable and in transition to becoming a minority coalition.  That’s in part due to the Electoral College which has mandated a grand coalition to be able to form a government and thus is hobbling Donald Trump.

2016 demonstrated that Hillary Clinton didn’t have the coalition needed to win the election (she clearly lost swaths of the Democratic minority coalition in the Upper Midwest) but it also showed that voters weren’t willing to trust Trump with the keys overall by denying him the popular vote (and taking away swaths of the GOP coalition in the Sunbelt and college educated areas).

[The_Doctor]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't necessarily agree that we would be better off switching to another system. For instance, in the recent British elections, the Parliament was hung because May couldn't gain a majority. She was reliant on a small North Irish party that most people hadn't even voted for to attain her majority. These niche parties holding power the way they do without being backed by the people, in my view, is a bad idea. It may work, but I don't necessarily like the idea of small parties holding the balance of power to dictate national policy. I think shoehorning minor coalitions into the grand coalition is a better way to set national policy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Let's break your argument down. I've already addressed the first part. To your second part, for 200 years, we've had states elect the President through the College and the legislatures prior to the 1820s were selected by the people, so presumably, the state legislatures represented the will of the people. (there were no, by the way, popular vote losers who won the electoral college from 1792 to 1820).

Third, no, there's a reason for this. That's because Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson are widely understood to be the founders of the Democratic Party. The Democratic - Republicans became the Democrats, while the Whigs and Federalists later became the Republicans. So I'm not wrong. Fourth, I contend that Jackson continued the Jeffersonian agrarian frontiersman ideology. If you look at Jefferson and Jackson, they held roughly the same ideology. The D-R may have transitioned to becoming the Democratic Party, but I do contend that Jackson continued Jeffersonian ideology and thus, I don't see that as much of a break. Again, the same holds for McKinley and Lincoln; McKinley continued the Lincoln Republican hegemony (while emphasizing the industrial aspect). As to your last part, I have defined the parties many times here so I won't rehash it - suffice it to say, the parties at the time were largely focused on a certain ideology. Where I differ from historians is seeing the break.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Here, you uh, miss the whole point of my paragraph about the role of third parties integrating into the New Deal coalition.

I'm skipping over the next few because I think it's extraneous.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh, Beet, a popular vote winner is not necessarily 51%. With many different parties, a popular vote winner can be as little as 35% of the vote. We've seen many parties achieve that and yet become a ruling party.  That's been seen many times and that empowers radicals to carve out strong positions. That's not really in dispute ...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No. I've defended my positions, thank you.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think that if you look at American elections dating to 1800, that the Electoral College has done a decent job of expressing the national will and the strengths of the coalitions that won / lost the election.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually, the Electoral College, logically, forces the Trumpkins into the grand GOP coalition. Arguably, if you demanded the President were only elected with a plurality of the popular vote rather than needing to win certain states, you could in theory elect a President with 35% of the vote and if the opposition was splintered, his party could take a majority. The requirement to hit 270 in the Electoral College, in my view, creates a domino effect that creates a two party system.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And won 49% in the re-election. But by virtue of Trump's popular vote loss, to win re-election, as the incumbent, he probably has to expand his coalition to survive in the Electoral College. I don't think he can squeak by with a 46% plurality again. The system seems to put a lot of emphasis on the incumbent party assembling a strong enough coalition to win election and re-election (via the Electoral College).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I admit a parliamentary system is probably feasible, but I don't necessarily agree that we must transition to one. I think the American system works just fine. Why change it if it's broken?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I oppose the abolition of the Electoral College because I believe strongly that as I said, it encourages stability, it creates two coalitions, rather than niche third parties. For instance, it's more feasible to have two parties rather than many different parties. For instance, a Green party candidate can't win the Presidency with 35% if the other parties split; he needs 45-51%, which dilutes the radical agenda he might hold. Which I think is a virtue, not a vice.

[The_Doctor]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh, the point, Beet, was that the Electoral College creates the need for broad coalitions, not for a narrow majority + requiring you to appeal to a crazy North Irish party. The problem, in my view, with parliamentary systems (and I'm not deriding them, they work fine) is that I'm not comfortable with a coalition being assembled that wasn't necessarily what voters wanted. I prefer to get what I voted for, not necessarily vote for a niche party and hope that I get into a coalition that will achieve some of my goals.

But the larger point is that the EC forces the creation of two parties. Indeed, in most parliamentary democracies, there are multiple parties. For the sake of our argument, we should stick to the American democratic experiment, however.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not really useful to our central argument; so I'm not going to deal with this. The evidence is that since record keeping began in 1820s and the states voted to send electors as a bloc, the College has done a very good job in forcing coalitions.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That ... that's not true. If you look at the election maps of 1800 and 1828, the Jefferson - Jackson maps are fairly consistent and similar, rooted in the South. The Democratic Party was rooted in the Southern frontiersman populists and farmers. You'll notice Jefferson and Jackson won the most westernmost frontiers states as well. So you're wrong.

The Democratic Party honors him as an ideological founder the same way the Republicans honor Lincoln. His death date does not factor into the argument.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's not accurate. The Democratic-Republicans split into two groups because they had absorbed everyone after the death of the Federalists. But the Whigs were from the Federalists and later became the GOP. The Democrats expanded their coalition in 1828 under the new laws but they weren't intrinsically different from Jefferson's Democratic-Republican coalition.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Beet, have you considered that your points don't have anything to do with the College and you tend to digress? I've been rebutting your digressions because they're interesting, but you keep thinking they're centered around your main point. They're not. 

I've defended the Jefferson-Jackson thing here, anyway.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Read the point again. And read what I've said about the Electoral College in this thread. Or read the answer below the next quoted block.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Let me explain this. The popular vote by itself allows you to win with 35% alone. The EC forces you to create a coalition that by nature facing a singular opposing coalition - that by definition raises your popular vote floor to above 35% to avoid a House vote. It's a bad idea to require our votes to (in my view) be at a minimum of 35%; the EC kind of raises the floor.

The rest of your statements are kind of just "I think therefore I am right" statements so I'm not addressing them. I think I've addressed the main thrust of your arguments.

Let's just stick to why the EC is essential versus why not.

[The_Doctor]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I thought I did.

I am arguing the Electoral College, by dint of how it is constructed, requires the creation of two broad coalitions. Why? It's pretty simple. It's more efficient to have two parties in every state advocating one presidential candidate. It's easier than the Green Party of Massachusetts, the Socialist Party of California, and the Democratic Party of Georgia holding multiple conventions to agree on the same candidate for the Left and the Constitution Party of Idaho, the Southern Evangelical Republican Party of Florida, and the Libertarian Party of Texas joining to nominate a conservative candidate.

Therefore, by dint of agreeing on a presidential candidate, it's just easier to organize downballot with a Republican and Democratic candidate rather than multiple candidates. It makes very little logistical sense to not organize with the same Presidential candidate (who would be the President and leading that coalition). I think that the Electoral College reinforces and creates this dynamic.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, remember that not every state will see 33%. In fact, you will get wildly varying figures in different states (1912 is a good example of this). So, usually, the EC will mean that you will probably organize and have two parties at roughly 80-100% of the vote. The EC probably means that to avoid a House runoff, you try to maximise your vote, and that leads to coalitions.

[The_Doctor]

Beet, I don't know how else I can explain my position, so we'll agree to disagree.