Electoral College Myth: Only Swing States Matter. Other States are Ignored.
Myth: Most states are ignored by presidential campaigns because of the Electoral College. Only swing states matter. A direct election system would fix this.
Fact: There are two reasons why this perception is incorrect.
First, an honest assessment of American history shows that no state is permanently “safe” or “swing.” The identity of these states changes all the time. This year, we are hearing about all sorts of “new” swing states, such as Virginia, New Hampshire, and North Carolina. Texas used to vote Democratic. California used to vote Republican. A whole slew of southern states voted for Bill Clinton, but would never dream of voting for Barack Obama. Even if “only swing states matter,” these states are constantly changing.
Second, presidential elections are not only about the TV commercials and campaign visits in the final weeks and months leading into Election Day. Presidential elections are as much about the four years of governance before the election as they are about the final commercials. How did California voters react when President Barack Obama decided not to allow construction of the Keystone Pipeline? How did Texas voters react when President George W. Bush issued his executive order prohibiting the use of federal funds for certain types of embryonic stem cell research? How many voters will not vote for Obama under any circumstance because of Obamacare? How many voters will love him forever for the same decision? Such decisions and their ramifications are part of governing, but they are also at least a part of “campaigning.” They do as much as a TV commercial (if not more) to influence voting decisions—as candidates and incumbents certainly know.
In short, “safe” states are not being ignored. They have simply already made up their minds based upon the years of decisions that preceded the election. When a state ceases to be satisfied, it quickly lets its political party—and the world!—know. Such states either become safe for the opposite political party (as West Virginia did following the election of 2000) or they become a new swing state (as Virginia recently has).
At the end of the day, political parties and presidential candidates can’t ever ignore any state unless they want to risk losing that state’s electoral votes.
Electoral College Myth: The Founders Did Not Trust the People
Myth: The Founders created the Electoral College because they did not trust the people to govern themselves.
Fact:
The Founders knew that the voice of the people must be reflected in the
government if it was to be legitimate. At the Constitutional
Convention, George Mason, delegate from Virginia, expressed this
sentiment when he declared that “the genius of the people must be
consulted.” The Founders had just fought a revolution because the
colonies had no representation in the British Parliament. They’d laid
their lives on the line for this principle of democracy. They were not
likely to give up on it so soon.
On the other hand, the delegates to the convention knew that pure democracies can be dangerous. In a pure democracy,
51 percent of the people rule the other 49 percent. All the time.
Without question. The Founders knew that, as a matter of history, pure
democracies implode because, in the heat of the moment, even bare or
emotional majorities can impose their will upon the rest of the
people. They also knew that, even if the American colonies had been
given representation in the British Parliament, Americans would have
been outvoted time and again by the majority of citizens at home in
England. Political minorities must be protected from tyrannical and
unreasonable majorities if a country is to survive.
James Madison, delegate from Virginia, put it this way:
[In a pure democracy], [a] common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert results from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.
The Founders wanted to create a
self-governing society, but they also wanted to protect political
minorities from the dangerous dynamics described by Madison. They solved
their problem by drafting a Constitution that would incorporate the
best elements of democracy (self-governance), republicanism
(deliberation and compromise), and federalism (states are able to act on
their own behalves).
America is self-governing, but our
Constitution also provides political minorities with tools that protect
them from the tyranny of the majority: For instance, we have a
presidential veto. We have supermajority requirements to amend the
Constitution. We have a Senate with one state, one vote representation,
as opposed to the House, with its one person, one vote representation.
The Electoral College is simply another of these protective devices.
The delegates to the Convention felt
that they had created a presidential election system that would allow
the majority to rule, even as it protected political minorities
from tyrannical rule. It is for this reason that Madison declared, “He
[the President] is now to be elected by the people.” Another delegate,
Alexander Hamilton, agreed that the new election system would allow the
“sense of the people” to “operate in the choice of the [President].”
“The Founders did not trust the People”
makes a snazzy sound bite. But the history of the Constitution and its
Electoral College shows a much more nuanced picture.
Electoral College Myth: The Electoral College is Undemocratic
Myth: The person who wins the national popular vote should win the White House. The Electoral College does not guarantee such results and is thus undemocratic.
Fact: The question is not “democracy” v. “no democracy.” The question is “democracy with federalism” (the Electoral College) v. “democracy without federalism” (a direct popular vote). Under our current system, America conducts 51 purely democratic elections each and every presidential election year—one in each state and one in D.C. This first phase of the election is what you think of as “Election Day.” These purely democratic, state-level elections determine which individuals (electors) will represent their states in a second phase of the election. Part Two of the election occurs in December—with much less media fanfare!—and is a federalist election among the states. There are 538 electors who participate in this election. A majority of them (270) can elect a President.
America’s unique blend of democracy and federalism has served the country well because it encourages presidential candidates to create national coalitions. A candidate must do more than simply rack up a majority of voters in one region or among the voters of one special interest group. He must appeal to a variety of Americans before he can win 270 states’ electoral votes. A direct popular election would not create the same set of incentives. Instead, the candidate who obtains the most individual votes—even if they are obtained exclusively in one region or in a handful of urban areas—would be able to win the presidency.
America is a large and diverse country, composed of both large and small states. It deserves a unique election process, ensuring that all voices are heard in the election of its President. The Electoral College, with its combination of democracy and federalism, has served the country well in this regard for more than 200 years.
No comments:
Post a Comment