Obviously, I am now of the opinion that a constitutional amendment is more possible than I had previously thought, without the “decade of strife”. What I was unaware of until now is that there are 25 state legislatures across the country currently drafting legislation to modify the allocation of their electoral votes, 19 more where such bills have already been introduced (including Arizona), and three - Maine, Nebraska and Colorado - where such bills have already passed, none of which require amending the U.S. Constitution. It seems to be the increasing sense of a number of constitutional scholars that if it should begin to appear probable that enough states will adopt such measures which will effectively and legally circumvent the EC stipulations of constitution anyway, then the politicians in Washington at the federal level will in all probability do as they did back when Congress repealed Prohibition – they looked out across the states and saw the writing on the wall and put aside their differences, bending to popular opinion before the people in the states rose up and took away their power. Isn’t that, after all, the way it should be?
I said before that there was hope… I just didn’t realize how much.
Still, despite the overwhelming majority of opinion favoring abolishment of the EC and the institution of a one-man, one-vote system instead, I would withhold support for a direct popular vote for the reasons I’ve already mentioned, plus a number of others that I hadn’t even considered, such as the very high likelihood of no candidate winning a majority (50%+1) of the vote, which has happened 18 times since John Quincy Adams was elected with 29% of the popular vote in 1824, and most recently with GWB’s 48% victory in 2000. Some would say that even did finally win a majority in 2004, it was by such a narrow margin over Kerry that Bush did not redeem himself for the squeaker in 2000. Still others would remind us that Bill Clinton never received a majority in either ’92 or ’96, with 43 and 49%, respectively.
And, because of Ross Perot’s winning 19% of the popular vote in ’92, I find myself now forced to consider the hypothetical of even a moderately strong third-party showing, say 45%, 44% and 11%. In this case, 55% of Americans would have voted for someone other than the “elected” president. A president with a 45% plurality is not exactly representative, no matter how you shake it. And, under the new rules, would such a result then require a run-off – another election? Or if not, would that no-mandate president then need to form a coalition with the 11% minority (possibly whacko) party in order for his “mainstream” party to govern in the real world? Please. There has to be a better way.
What I would now support, however, is an openly debated move by the Congress and the several states to amend the U.S. Constitution to preserve the EC but to allot the votes proportionally on a state-by-state, district-by-district basis, thereby protecting federalism while more closely reflecting the will of the voters, right down to the district level. In such a case, if we here in AZ District 1 give a majority of our votes to Candidate A, then we can be assured that at least one of Arizona’s 10 electoral votes will go to Candidate A.
Who was it who said that to change one’s mind proves, at the very least, that you have one? Well, whoever it was must have been trying to analyze the electoral college at the time. The pros and cons of this issue are enough to make anyone crazy.
To be honest, until it came up here a couple days ago, I hadn’t done any in-depth reading on the controversy since shortly after the 2000 election when it was in all the news. At that time, I formed my “status quo” opinion based mostly upon the distinct impression that only the “sore losers” were in favor of a radical change. I also had no desire for the discontent that the conventional wisdom felt an amendment fight would surely bring, having just watched the nation go through the nightmare of recounting the recount. What I missed at the time was that way, way, way in the back of this howling mob of disenfranchised voters were a few thoughtful voices who had been calling for EC reform for many years, and for none of the reasons being tendered by the angry masses.
Now, six years later, the dust has settled and the debate is once again being conducted by cooler heads who, in my newfound opinion, have since advanced the argument for significant reform, if not outright abolition, to a point I now find extremely compelling.
I should say that some of the most comprehensive (and balanced) writings I’ve been able to find are those by the League of Women Voters, former independent candidate for president, John Anderson, and Steve Forbes, among others. In wading through the reams of contention on the matter, it all seems to boil down to one over-riding dynamic, as I see it, that being the imperative wish of the people over that of the state. Regardless of it’s claim to being “representative”, no federal system can make that assertion if it overrides the popular vote and allows for minority rule, which is what the EC has permitted on a number of occasions.
Anyway, you're right, Ruby... that's very clever... and very sleazy! Looks like an attempt to make an end run around the constitution to me. Isn't the electorate awake up there, or are there just too few who care to make a difference? Let me do a little reading on what you've got cooking and I'll be back with my typically reserved remarks.
And, Tom, I hope you’re happy. See what you started?!?
“None of what I found in my research particularly jumps out and says, 'Susan, you're right...' “
-
No, that was me saying that. I’ve found no serious political observer recommending such a predictable constitutional crisis. There is, however, much discussion of various proportional allocation schemes. Hopefully someday there will be more than talk. I read somewhere that Colorado may consider such a move.
-
“…I would argue that we are more than 6 years into a "decade of strife" right now…”
-
Well, that’s certainly true… about 8 by my count. But at least this strife is of the “A vs. B” variety - Red vs. Blue, Liberal vs. Conservative, Democrat vs. Republican – fairly simple and easy to keep track of. If and when it ever comes down to a fight over the states losing their representation in the selection of the federal executive, I’m here to tell you that we’ve not seen the likes of such a cataclysm.
Not only would such an issue pit states-rights folks against big government types within each state, but the various legislatures of states that are typically seen as “allies”, like say New York and California, could very well come down on opposite sides of the issue based on their extraordinary respective regional differences. And, the opposite might be seen with states such as Vermont with its 3 very Blue electoral votes siding with Wyoming and its 3 very Red electoral votes against reliably Blue Illinois and typically Red Texas, both large states whose voters do not benefit from the EC.
The more I think about this, though, maybe such a fight might be a good thing in the long run. The A-B, garden-variety partisanship described above that we’ve been seeing since Monicagate may be a mile wide, but it’s only an inch deep. It’s superficial in the sense that many people have chosen sides without any idea why, except for those One-issue Charlies we were talking about. Sadly, most Americans don’t have the slightest clue what the term “states rights” means, that it is the keystone of the republic. Nor do they see the need to care, being perfectly comfortable thinking of government as omnipresent and homogenous, a primordial entity existing at all levels of life to provide benefits and services… the more, the better.
Maybe a good knock-down, drag-out national debate over the fundamental differences between a top-down, Socialist-style central government and a bottom-up, participatory democracy is what’s needed to fill in the deplorable blanks left by a public school system more interested in political correctness than education. Regardless of the outcome, at least those who have thrown their lot with one camp or the other will have done so with eyes wide open.
And, like Juan, I’ll now apologize for drifting into what some might consider partisanship. But at least I did so without calling anyone juvenile names or impugning anyone’s intelligence or mental health.
The bottom line is, of course, that in theory you are right… we would almost certainly be better off today with something less arcane than the system we now have. In the real world, however, doing away with the EC would take an amendment to the Constitution which would first have to be passed in both the House and Senate, then ratified by three-fourths of all state legislatures (38 states). Since the smaller states are beneficiaries of the existing EC, it’s almost certain that 13 or more of them would fail to ratify. Even if it were to pass, can you imagine the massive bureaucracy it would take to conduct elections down to the precinct level in every county on a national scale? And, wouldn’t such a colossal federal agency probably end up being staffed by the same incompetent if well-meaning people who run the polls now? Think Florida 2000… times 51! (DC)
Personally, I like the idea of keeping the EC just to avoid a decade of strife, but requiring each state to allot its electoral votes proportionately instead of winner-take-all. If 51% of Arizonans vote for Candidate A, then that’s all they get. The remainder go to the rest proportionally. The two big political parties would hate the idea, because if the Candidate A wins New York by one ballot, all 31 electoral votes go to the that side of the roster, and vise versa for Candidate B and Texas’ 36. The Constitution does allows the states to decide such things, and it’s probably as close as we’re ever going to get to one-man, one-vote for president. In fact, both Maine (4) and Nebraska (3) have each amended their state constitutions and are now doing it in a more representative way, so there’s hope.
Thank you, Susan, for the background and for the citation. Truly fascinating stuff! I can only imagine the endless hours of contentious debate it took to wring out these sorts of issues, especially at a time when passions were running so high from just having won independence from what was then the world’s only super power! Lots of ideas, lots of debate… six months of it, you know. And, it's intriguing to think that all this occurred at a time before there were political parties to “help” the attendees clarify their positions, so the debates that took place were among truly independent representatives of the 13 states in existence at the time (except Rhode Island) and virtually every faction within those states. Kinda makes what we call "partisanship" today look like a cakewalk!
It is essential to note, however, that the delegates did reject the notion of a popular vote, not, as you correctly point out, for reasons of arrogance or ignorance, but because ultimately it would unduly favor the most populous states to the detriment of the smaller states, and the country was at that time a federation of sovereign and equal states. I have read that the idea of a popular vote was never really a serious consideration, though, and that it was only floated by delegates of the larger states as a “fear factor” for leverage to squeeze certain concessions out of the smaller states, with specific regard to slavery, which were in the majority at the time. European political philosophers had long since coined the phrase “tyranny of the majority”, so it was already a lesson well learned.
The ultimate decision of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention seems to show that the idea of federalism, a strong central government, was very unpopular at that time, with sovereignty of the individual states much more important to the delegates and to the people they represented back home. This very idea is what made our new, fledgling nation unique. The people in each state, which is to say the states themselves, wanted an “equal say”, so to speak, in the selection of a federal executive (the only elective office, by the way, NOT subject to popular vote), thus the creation of the electoral college system to level the playing field. It allowed each state and their regional interests to vote within their boundaries for a president of all the states, then send their individual decisions to Washington for a final tally. The great compromise came over slavery and representation by population. The larger northern states agreed not to abolish slavery in the new Constitution if the smaller southern states agreed to the three-fifths rule for both census and taxation. As we know, all this changed not 80 years later.
The way I understand it, Susan, the electoral college is designed as it is to prevent states with large populations from having an inordinate influence on the outcome of national elections. If they did away with the electoral college, no presidential candidate would campaign in Arizona or Montana because he would be spending all his time in California and New York. One man, one vote works fine at the state level and for referenda, but no national issues are nor should be decided by popular vote. The constitution states that the president, in particular, is to be elected "by the several states", not by the people in a straw vote. I know that the term has lost meaning over the years, as have several others that have gone the way of "civics" class, but we are, after all, The United States of America.
Great question, Tom... I just wish I could do it justice. When I try to consider such an electronic direct democracy as you describe, I simply can’t get past Square One: Do we really want to see mob rule on a national level?
Why in the world would we want to make it easier for the terminally uninformed to gang together for the most specious of reasons and have an irrevocable impact on our lives… hell… on the world? At least the way it is now, only about half of eligible voters actually make the effort, and a goodly portion of those are the result of intense, often dishonest propaganda wars waged on TV, in newspapers, on billboards, radio AND the internet in the run-up to the election, rallying the troops, which is really just another way of saying firing up the whackos on the fringe. If elections were left to just those who truly cared enough to educate themselves first, then go to the polls, I’d wager we wouldn’t see a 20% turnout, which might be a MUCH better thing in my opinion.
We may scream and holler at “partisan gridlock” in government, but there’s a reason why the creation of a republican representative democracy was and still is considered political genius. Remember… at one time the majority of the population thought slavery was a good thing.
I'm with the Chief on this one... especially that part about never expressing a political opinion except for when I have one. Reminds me of an aunt of mine who smacked her husband because he called her violent. :)
30 January 2007 at 11:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
MJA (Michael Alexander) says…
Thanks, Susan... but I'm easy. Now it's up to the states to open minds in Washington.
On Would a true democracy be any better?
30 January 2007 at 10:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
MJA (Michael Alexander) says…
(Part Three…)
Obviously, I am now of the opinion that a constitutional amendment is more possible than I had previously thought, without the “decade of strife”. What I was unaware of until now is that there are 25 state legislatures across the country currently drafting legislation to modify the allocation of their electoral votes, 19 more where such bills have already been introduced (including Arizona), and three - Maine, Nebraska and Colorado - where such bills have already passed, none of which require amending the U.S. Constitution. It seems to be the increasing sense of a number of constitutional scholars that if it should begin to appear probable that enough states will adopt such measures which will effectively and legally circumvent the EC stipulations of constitution anyway, then the politicians in Washington at the federal level will in all probability do as they did back when Congress repealed Prohibition – they looked out across the states and saw the writing on the wall and put aside their differences, bending to popular opinion before the people in the states rose up and took away their power. Isn’t that, after all, the way it should be?
I said before that there was hope… I just didn’t realize how much.
On Would a true democracy be any better?
30 January 2007 at 10:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
MJA (Michael Alexander) says…
(Part Two…)
Still, despite the overwhelming majority of opinion favoring abolishment of the EC and the institution of a one-man, one-vote system instead, I would withhold support for a direct popular vote for the reasons I’ve already mentioned, plus a number of others that I hadn’t even considered, such as the very high likelihood of no candidate winning a majority (50%+1) of the vote, which has happened 18 times since John Quincy Adams was elected with 29% of the popular vote in 1824, and most recently with GWB’s 48% victory in 2000. Some would say that even did finally win a majority in 2004, it was by such a narrow margin over Kerry that Bush did not redeem himself for the squeaker in 2000. Still others would remind us that Bill Clinton never received a majority in either ’92 or ’96, with 43 and 49%, respectively.
And, because of Ross Perot’s winning 19% of the popular vote in ’92, I find myself now forced to consider the hypothetical of even a moderately strong third-party showing, say 45%, 44% and 11%. In this case, 55% of Americans would have voted for someone other than the “elected” president. A president with a 45% plurality is not exactly representative, no matter how you shake it. And, under the new rules, would such a result then require a run-off – another election? Or if not, would that no-mandate president then need to form a coalition with the 11% minority (possibly whacko) party in order for his “mainstream” party to govern in the real world? Please. There has to be a better way.
What I would now support, however, is an openly debated move by the Congress and the several states to amend the U.S. Constitution to preserve the EC but to allot the votes proportionally on a state-by-state, district-by-district basis, thereby protecting federalism while more closely reflecting the will of the voters, right down to the district level. In such a case, if we here in AZ District 1 give a majority of our votes to Candidate A, then we can be assured that at least one of Arizona’s 10 electoral votes will go to Candidate A.
(Continued…)
On Would a true democracy be any better?
30 January 2007 at 10:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
MJA (Michael Alexander) says…
Who was it who said that to change one’s mind proves, at the very least, that you have one? Well, whoever it was must have been trying to analyze the electoral college at the time. The pros and cons of this issue are enough to make anyone crazy.
To be honest, until it came up here a couple days ago, I hadn’t done any in-depth reading on the controversy since shortly after the 2000 election when it was in all the news. At that time, I formed my “status quo” opinion based mostly upon the distinct impression that only the “sore losers” were in favor of a radical change. I also had no desire for the discontent that the conventional wisdom felt an amendment fight would surely bring, having just watched the nation go through the nightmare of recounting the recount. What I missed at the time was that way, way, way in the back of this howling mob of disenfranchised voters were a few thoughtful voices who had been calling for EC reform for many years, and for none of the reasons being tendered by the angry masses.
Now, six years later, the dust has settled and the debate is once again being conducted by cooler heads who, in my newfound opinion, have since advanced the argument for significant reform, if not outright abolition, to a point I now find extremely compelling.
I should say that some of the most comprehensive (and balanced) writings I’ve been able to find are those by the League of Women Voters, former independent candidate for president, John Anderson, and Steve Forbes, among others. In wading through the reams of contention on the matter, it all seems to boil down to one over-riding dynamic, as I see it, that being the imperative wish of the people over that of the state. Regardless of it’s claim to being “representative”, no federal system can make that assertion if it overrides the popular vote and allows for minority rule, which is what the EC has permitted on a number of occasions.
(Continued…)
On Would a true democracy be any better?
29 January 2007 at 3:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
MJA (Michael Alexander) says…
OK, Susan... glad we got that cleared up. (???)
Anyway, you're right, Ruby... that's very clever... and very sleazy! Looks like an attempt to make an end run around the constitution to me. Isn't the electorate awake up there, or are there just too few who care to make a difference? Let me do a little reading on what you've got cooking and I'll be back with my typically reserved remarks.
And, Tom, I hope you’re happy. See what you started?!?
On Would a true democracy be any better?
29 January 2007 at noon
Suggest removal
MJA (Michael Alexander) says…
“None of what I found in my research particularly jumps out and says, 'Susan, you're right...' “
-
No, that was me saying that. I’ve found no serious political observer recommending such a predictable constitutional crisis. There is, however, much discussion of various proportional allocation schemes. Hopefully someday there will be more than talk. I read somewhere that Colorado may consider such a move.
-
“…I would argue that we are more than 6 years into a "decade of strife" right now…”
-
Well, that’s certainly true… about 8 by my count. But at least this strife is of the “A vs. B” variety - Red vs. Blue, Liberal vs. Conservative, Democrat vs. Republican – fairly simple and easy to keep track of. If and when it ever comes down to a fight over the states losing their representation in the selection of the federal executive, I’m here to tell you that we’ve not seen the likes of such a cataclysm.
Not only would such an issue pit states-rights folks against big government types within each state, but the various legislatures of states that are typically seen as “allies”, like say New York and California, could very well come down on opposite sides of the issue based on their extraordinary respective regional differences. And, the opposite might be seen with states such as Vermont with its 3 very Blue electoral votes siding with Wyoming and its 3 very Red electoral votes against reliably Blue Illinois and typically Red Texas, both large states whose voters do not benefit from the EC.
The more I think about this, though, maybe such a fight might be a good thing in the long run. The A-B, garden-variety partisanship described above that we’ve been seeing since Monicagate may be a mile wide, but it’s only an inch deep. It’s superficial in the sense that many people have chosen sides without any idea why, except for those One-issue Charlies we were talking about. Sadly, most Americans don’t have the slightest clue what the term “states rights” means, that it is the keystone of the republic. Nor do they see the need to care, being perfectly comfortable thinking of government as omnipresent and homogenous, a primordial entity existing at all levels of life to provide benefits and services… the more, the better.
Maybe a good knock-down, drag-out national debate over the fundamental differences between a top-down, Socialist-style central government and a bottom-up, participatory democracy is what’s needed to fill in the deplorable blanks left by a public school system more interested in political correctness than education. Regardless of the outcome, at least those who have thrown their lot with one camp or the other will have done so with eyes wide open.
And, like Juan, I’ll now apologize for drifting into what some might consider partisanship. But at least I did so without calling anyone juvenile names or impugning anyone’s intelligence or mental health.
On Would a true democracy be any better?
28 January 2007 at 1:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
MJA (Michael Alexander) says…
(Part Two…)
The bottom line is, of course, that in theory you are right… we would almost certainly be better off today with something less arcane than the system we now have. In the real world, however, doing away with the EC would take an amendment to the Constitution which would first have to be passed in both the House and Senate, then ratified by three-fourths of all state legislatures (38 states). Since the smaller states are beneficiaries of the existing EC, it’s almost certain that 13 or more of them would fail to ratify. Even if it were to pass, can you imagine the massive bureaucracy it would take to conduct elections down to the precinct level in every county on a national scale? And, wouldn’t such a colossal federal agency probably end up being staffed by the same incompetent if well-meaning people who run the polls now? Think Florida 2000… times 51! (DC)
Personally, I like the idea of keeping the EC just to avoid a decade of strife, but requiring each state to allot its electoral votes proportionately instead of winner-take-all. If 51% of Arizonans vote for Candidate A, then that’s all they get. The remainder go to the rest proportionally. The two big political parties would hate the idea, because if the Candidate A wins New York by one ballot, all 31 electoral votes go to the that side of the roster, and vise versa for Candidate B and Texas’ 36. The Constitution does allows the states to decide such things, and it’s probably as close as we’re ever going to get to one-man, one-vote for president. In fact, both Maine (4) and Nebraska (3) have each amended their state constitutions and are now doing it in a more representative way, so there’s hope.
On Would a true democracy be any better?
28 January 2007 at 1:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
MJA (Michael Alexander) says…
Thank you, Susan, for the background and for the citation. Truly fascinating stuff! I can only imagine the endless hours of contentious debate it took to wring out these sorts of issues, especially at a time when passions were running so high from just having won independence from what was then the world’s only super power! Lots of ideas, lots of debate… six months of it, you know. And, it's intriguing to think that all this occurred at a time before there were political parties to “help” the attendees clarify their positions, so the debates that took place were among truly independent representatives of the 13 states in existence at the time (except Rhode Island) and virtually every faction within those states. Kinda makes what we call "partisanship" today look like a cakewalk!
It is essential to note, however, that the delegates did reject the notion of a popular vote, not, as you correctly point out, for reasons of arrogance or ignorance, but because ultimately it would unduly favor the most populous states to the detriment of the smaller states, and the country was at that time a federation of sovereign and equal states. I have read that the idea of a popular vote was never really a serious consideration, though, and that it was only floated by delegates of the larger states as a “fear factor” for leverage to squeeze certain concessions out of the smaller states, with specific regard to slavery, which were in the majority at the time. European political philosophers had long since coined the phrase “tyranny of the majority”, so it was already a lesson well learned.
The ultimate decision of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention seems to show that the idea of federalism, a strong central government, was very unpopular at that time, with sovereignty of the individual states much more important to the delegates and to the people they represented back home. This very idea is what made our new, fledgling nation unique. The people in each state, which is to say the states themselves, wanted an “equal say”, so to speak, in the selection of a federal executive (the only elective office, by the way, NOT subject to popular vote), thus the creation of the electoral college system to level the playing field. It allowed each state and their regional interests to vote within their boundaries for a president of all the states, then send their individual decisions to Washington for a final tally. The great compromise came over slavery and representation by population. The larger northern states agreed not to abolish slavery in the new Constitution if the smaller southern states agreed to the three-fifths rule for both census and taxation. As we know, all this changed not 80 years later.
(Continued…)
On Would a true democracy be any better?
27 January 2007 at 5:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
MJA (Michael Alexander) says…
The way I understand it, Susan, the electoral college is designed as it is to prevent states with large populations from having an inordinate influence on the outcome of national elections. If they did away with the electoral college, no presidential candidate would campaign in Arizona or Montana because he would be spending all his time in California and New York. One man, one vote works fine at the state level and for referenda, but no national issues are nor should be decided by popular vote. The constitution states that the president, in particular, is to be elected "by the several states", not by the people in a straw vote. I know that the term has lost meaning over the years, as have several others that have gone the way of "civics" class, but we are, after all, The United States of America.
On Would a true democracy be any better?
27 January 2007 at 2:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
MJA (Michael Alexander) says…
Great question, Tom... I just wish I could do it justice. When I try to consider such an electronic direct democracy as you describe, I simply can’t get past Square One: Do we really want to see mob rule on a national level?
Why in the world would we want to make it easier for the terminally uninformed to gang together for the most specious of reasons and have an irrevocable impact on our lives… hell… on the world? At least the way it is now, only about half of eligible voters actually make the effort, and a goodly portion of those are the result of intense, often dishonest propaganda wars waged on TV, in newspapers, on billboards, radio AND the internet in the run-up to the election, rallying the troops, which is really just another way of saying firing up the whackos on the fringe. If elections were left to just those who truly cared enough to educate themselves first, then go to the polls, I’d wager we wouldn’t see a 20% turnout, which might be a MUCH better thing in my opinion.
We may scream and holler at “partisan gridlock” in government, but there’s a reason why the creation of a republican representative democracy was and still is considered political genius. Remember… at one time the majority of the population thought slavery was a good thing.
I'm with the Chief on this one... especially that part about never expressing a political opinion except for when I have one. Reminds me of an aunt of mine who smacked her husband because he called her violent. :)
On Would a true democracy be any better?