The Electoral College: Arguments

[Beet]

Or more specifically, why some arguments for keeping it don't work. Over at The Fray there is an interesting discussion going on on the Electoral College.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1.) The claim that the possibility of a swing state is just as real in any proposed alternative which tries to mimic a direct national vote, because concentrated regional blocs of voters can easily be numerous enough to swing such an election.

The concept of a swing state is predicated on the notion that a small change in the proportion of the vote within the state (say a 51-49 Pennsylvania instead of a 49-51 Pennsylvania) can produce a disproportionate result. Without that dynamic the concept of a swing state (or swing region) is meaningless, as it does not matter who wins this or that region, it only matters who wins the overall most votes. This would be a recipe for LESS regional polarization, not more.

2.) The Article "Math Against Tyranny" does not refute any of the criticisms of the Electoral College as it now stands- its marginalization of non-swing states, its anti-democratic nature, its anachronistic character, and it's arbitrariness. It is predicated solely on the idea that one's likelihood of influencing the outcome of the election by your vote alone is increased from a vanishingly nonexistent amount to a slightly less vanishingly nonexistent amount. In other words, an interesting theoretical exercise, but no more, and certainly does not lead one to the conclusion of the present College.

[Beet]

3.) The claim that the Electoral College is like baseball.

The game of baseball, as has been pointed out above, is an exercise in recreation in which the most important unit of victory is the "game". It is not designed to measure how good a team's athletes are to the optimal level of perfection. If one team won a 7 game series by 4-3 but the losing team had numerous injuries and won their 3 games by huge margins while those injuries cost them the decisive 1 game, who would the money-changers rank as the best game if the teams were to face each other again, or in the next season without any trades? Even in baseball, those who are seriously studying the statistics do not just look at games won but RBIs, ERAs, etc. etc.

Furthermore, the analogy obscures that all states, unlike all games, are not equal. In fact, 80% of states are foregone conclusions. What if there was a rule that said that a team could only field its best players in game 1, while in games 2-5 it could only field two or three bad pitchers and its worst hitters? Such would be a game that was a foregone conclusion, and no baseball fan would stand for such rules.

4.) The claim that the College requires the the eventual winner perform well across a broader spectrum.

On the contrary, the College requires the eventual winner to perform across a NARROWER spectrum, geographically. He or she can get demolished in Nebraska, Montana, Texas, and Utah, but still win a victory by eking out tiny margins in Ohio and Florida. In fact, only the Electoral College allows the winner to win with less than a majority of the vote. By definition, it leaves more room for winners who leave more American voters behind than the popular vote.


5.) The claim that we would not be able to talk about the "President of the United States" but we'd have the "President of California, New York and Florida"

Does the author of this objection really think George W. Bush, the current President, really has 'wide geographical support' encompassing all areas of the country? Hardly. The President elected by the Electoral College has been one of the most polarizing Presidents in recent history. To many, he's the President of "Texas, Texas, and Texas". He's made absolutely no effort to reach out to the people or areas that did not support him, as evidenced by his win in 2004 again losing almost exactly the same states.

6.) The claim that the electorate would largely be polarized along geographic lines: the large population centers are mostly coastal, while the sparser areas lie in the nation's interior.

Again, the electorate is currently polarized (geographically) along roughly those lines. The author is merely describing the status quo. The only difference is that the author (apparently) imagines that this time it would be the coastal areas in the majority. This assumption is wrong-- as the Slate writer pointed out, Kerry, who had more support among coastal areas, would have been put at a disadvantage in a national popular vote situation.

7.) The claim that the Electoral College empowers small states while disempowering large ones.

Simply incorrect. The Electoral College empowers SWING states while disempowering non-swing states. Hence Florida, the 4th-largest out of 50 states (and hence in the top 8% percentile) decisively swung the 2000 elections due to the electoral college, while the much smaller states of Oregon and New Mexico were unable to do so. The small states like Montana and the Dakotas are DOUBLY punished by the Electoral College: not only do they have less people but they are not swing states. Hence, they receive even LESS attention than they would under a national popular vote.

8.) The notion that the Electoral College goes against the 'tyranny of the majority' like bicameral Congress, with representation apportioned equally to all states in one house and apportioned by population in the other, makes the same trade-off in a far more explicit fashion, and in doing so provides an effective check against tryanny by the majority.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how Congress's structure protects against tyranny of the majority. It does so by dividing powers among different parties, such as the two Houses of Congress; by staggering elections in the Senate, and by giving certain protections to the minority, regardless of which minority that is.

The Electoral College on the other hand, serves only to introduce an arbitrary element of bias into the system. It does not divide the Presidential power; whomever is elected President still has all the same unified powers. That makes the bicameral and staggering elements of Congressional diffusion irrelevant. Secondly, it does not give certain protections to the minority regardless of who is in the minority. It only protects the minority under certain, arbitrary cases. When the 'tyranny of the majority' benefits from the Electoral College (which is most of the time), it actually artificially enhances the stature of a smaller win by making it seem larger than it was.

In short, the claims made above are invalid; it is not impossible to defend the Electoral College, but they cannot be made under the grounds given above.

[Beet]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

... to amend this; the assignment of an electoral vote for a Senator does benefit small states slightly. However, the main effect, especially in terms of particularistic state interests (i.e., hurricanes vs. corn; how much does my vote matter? etc) is still between safe states and swing states.