Electoral College: any changes coming?

[Gustaf]

Isn't it a bit strange to change the EC every 10 years only? If there was a significant demographical change the system could become grossly unfair, with certain states getting heavily overrepresented. Sure, I'm from a country with proportional representation so I'm not that familiar with these things, but it does seem weird to me.

[Gustaf]

Isn't it a bit strange to change the EC every 10 years only? If there was a significant demographical change the system could become grossly unfair, with certain states getting heavily overrepresented. Sure, I'm from a country with proportional representation so I'm not that familiar with these things, but it does seem weird to me.

The constitution mandates that every ten years we have a census and reapportionment.

Yes, but just b/c something is in the constitution it isn't necessarily good or right, is it?

[Gustaf]

Well, on your first point, since the people vote on the president, they should actually elect him, or else the EC should be restored to its original power. Currently, there is the impression that the president is elected by the people, and either that impression should be removed completely, or it should be made true. Being in the middle is no good.

If you have a nation-wide count, the likeliness of ties is smaller, I believe. I think the Gore national margin was big enough (500 000 votes) that it wouldn't have gone away in a recount. And that would most likely be the case in most elections. Countries do have popular votes, and it usually works just fine.

First, one can make the argument that the Founders' expectations were that the election would be decided in the House.  Initially, there were many candidates in the quadrennial elections and it was difficult to get a majority in the EC.

Secondly, there's no a priori expectation of popular vote mandates.  For example we don't elect most justices.  We can accept that one of the three branches is not popularly elected; this indicates that it may not be such a difficult mental stretch to imagine we can accept that two of three branches are not.  This is neither good nor bad.  Just the way it is.

Third, remember that the EC was a reasonable attempt at Federalism, much like some of the bizarre formulations for distribution of authority in what the European Steel and Coal Union has evolved into.  It is noteworthy that in the early literature the phrase was "These United States are..." and by around 1845 it had been almost entirely supplanted by  "The United States is..."  And this was well before the strong-central-government vs. states-rights issue was finally settled at the point of a bayonnet.    Except in the minds of those who belong to  extreme states-rights groups (Libertarians, Constitutionalists, the Brookings Institute, etc.), the supremacy of DC over the various legislatures is a given.  This, too, is neither good nor bad, just evolution.  But we shouldn't forget the original intentions of the framers.

That said, I'm of two minds when it comes to the EC.  On the one hand, that one candidate can win a plurality of the actual voters' votes and still lose is a bit unsettling.  On the other, if ever there was a case in favor of the current state-by-state system, the 2000 general election was it.  When one guy gets 48 plus or minus a percent and the other guy gets 48-point-something plus or minus a percent (that's what most folks call a tie), there's likely to be serious calls for recounting.  In our current system, the recounts were localized in two small states (NM, where gore eventually won by 360 votes!  IA, where gore eventually won by 4000) and one large (FL, where bush won by 185 if you counted them the way the bushies wanted, bush won by 1500 if you count them the way gore wanted, or 587, if you count them the way Katherine Harris wanted.)  As it is, we didn't have a winner till December 12.  Can you imagine how it would have been if we had been required to do a nation-wide recount of 105 million votes?!  There's a good chance that we may not have had a victor by innauguration day.

Still, like most folks, I'm undecided about whether the current system best fits.  Recall that more amendments have dealt with the issue of how we pick our national CEO than any other issue.  I think the suggestion of getting rid of the vertical offset (y-intercept as it were) of 2 extra votes for the number of senators and keeping the slope (no, that's not an ethnoracial slur, I mean the geometric change in y, or electoral votes, with x, the population).  But, as a serious practical matter, everyone seems to agree that change is unlikely since it involves amending the constitition.

[Gustaf]

I very much like the electoral college as it seems to me to strongly favor Republican candidates.  I don't see anyone being able to push through a constitutional amendment to change it.  However I could foresee one and only one way to gain more advantage - for Northern and Southern California to split.  The two halves and the rural part of the state are becoming more and more alienated, and it is a place where all sorts of bizarre voter initiatives occur.  Is this a possible scenario?  If the new 'South California' included enough of the rural areas it would give us a good chance of Republican victories - for both EC and Senate seats.

Do you actually think that the fundaments of a nation should be decided on the basis of "what's best for me"? If your founding fathers had thought like that you Americans would be in so much trouble right now.

[Gustaf]

I very much like the electoral college as it seems to me to strongly favor Republican candidates.  I don't see anyone being able to push through a constitutional amendment to change it.  However I could foresee one and only one way to gain more advantage - for Northern and Southern California to split.  The two halves and the rural part of the state are becoming more and more alienated, and it is a place where all sorts of bizarre voter initiatives occur.  Is this a possible scenario?  If the new 'South California' included enough of the rural areas it would give us a good chance of Republican victories - for both EC and Senate seats.

Do you actually think that the fundaments of a nation should be decided on the basis of "what's best for me"? If your founding fathers had thought like that you Americans would be in so much trouble right now.

Gustaf, I wasn't talking about the Founding Fathers, I was talking about the Republican party.  We had good success with the recall in CA, so why not a voter initiative to split the state?  I have no idea if such a thing were possible but it would be great.

Also, about the Electoral College as a whole - I'm sure the founding fathers would have intended it as yet another designed factor to reduce 'true democracy' - something they rightly saw as an evil.  The country was set up as  Republic to provide regional representation.  The fact that it does benefit the Republican Party *at present* does please me, and makes me suspect that our party more reflects the values of the Founding Fathers.  But the reason I think we'll keep it is that no small rural state would ever agree to ratify a change - its against their interests.

You seem to think that changes should be conducted on th basis of self-interest. But if Democracy is so evil and the Republican party best represents the American people, why not go all the way, and simply ban all other parties? Then you get your desired effect, and rid yourself of the tiresome democracy. It might produce a wrong result every now and then, even if you cheat the system.

[Gustaf]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course the only reason changes would ever happen would be due to self-interest!  How do you think politics works?  If one party gains control and can change the system to benefit itself, it will - for example gerrymandering during redistricting.  So I'm all for my party doing its best in this way.  And the reasons for limiting democracy are legitimate, since mob rule is dangerous.  And yes, perfect democracy would tend to favor the left, so I'm much happier being in a constitutional republic where the actions of the majority are limited by various strageties from the Bill of Rights to the Electoral College.  

I believe that system should be sound and fair. But if your concept of fairness and morality is non-existent, then I guess your view is logical.

[Gustaf]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course the only reason changes would ever happen would be due to self-interest!  How do you think politics works?  If one party gains control and can change the system to benefit itself, it will - for example gerrymandering during redistricting.  So I'm all for my party doing its best in this way.  And the reasons for limiting democracy are legitimate, since mob rule is dangerous.  And yes, perfect democracy would tend to favor the left, so I'm much happier being in a constitutional republic where the actions of the majority are limited by various strageties from the Bill of Rights to the Electoral College.  

I believe that system should be sound and fair. But if your concept of fairness and morality is non-existent, then I guess your view is logical.

I have a very consistent sense of fairness and morality, but it is based more on what protects the individual from the majority, rather than idealizing the empowerment of the majority, as happens under full democracy.  We just have different values.  Basically I fear the State, and fear the majority (or Mob), and I suspect the Founder Fathers felt exactly the same way.  

I agree with that, but the solution is to reduce the power of politics, not to reduce the democratic inluence on politicians. Democracy, together with free markets, is what we have to keep the politicians in check. A constitution is useful to keep them restrained, but is always possible to circumvent, since it contains ny dynamics.