The Electoral College was an ineffective from its inception, and it’s honestly miraculous that it has functioned as a system for as long as it has, as Burdett Loomis is swift to point out. Schafer attempts to point out the subtler nuances of the college in his essay (none of which are particularly convincing, as many of the “problems” he cites, such as a greater number of candidates and choice, are, polarization aside, exactly what many reform advocates desire. His polarization argument should be even more frustrating to us Alaskans who, with our new Ranked-Choice system designed to decrease polarization, understand how to mitigate his problems with the very reforms he rails against), but utterly sidesteps the issue which is of the most import: that the Electoral College deliberately prioritizes some citizens and their right to vote above others. This disenfranchisement, above all else, is the key reason the Electoral College is unsupportable: it organizes our state-by-state voting into a caste system which disincentivizes engaging the entire US population, leading to a general malaise in the overall citizenry who believe, with good evidence, that their vote is inferior and doesn’t matter.
As Shafer demurred from discussing this aspect, I will examine the chief argument from detractors against my point, that being that in a truly democratic system, the candidates from major parties would appeal only to the states with the largest populations. Not only is this a clear problem under the EC system as well, as the the candidates are incentivized to appeal to a small number of smaller states instead, it is also utterly wrong. A popular vote system would make every vote integral, not just the votes of a singular state. It would increase turnout, incentivize broader campaigning as a counterbalance to the larger cultural-center states, and deliver on the promise that every men (and their rights) are created equal.
Seneca,
While your argument was well written and thought out I disagree on a few points. The first point that I disagree with is that the EC has been a failure from its origins. I believe that it kept the animosity between the large states and the small states from boiling over. This conflict between state power relationships was a huge issue facing the founders and risked breaking up the union long before the Civil War. Secondly, I disagree with the concept that the EC causes disenfranchisement. I believe that the EC actually does just the opposite it provides a voice to those in small population centers who would not be heard if the vote was determined by an overall popular vote. Third, spreading the election amongst the 50 states makes systemic fraud much more difficult. It is much harder to exert undue influence on the vote count when the winner is determined by state-by-state elections as opposed to a popular count. Also, large counties with lopsided populations in favor of one party or the other control the direction of the vote. Thus, the campaigns would focus all attention on those regions and the issues that concern them. This would generally evolve into a one party dominance as we see in cities such as Chicago and New York. This limits the opportunity for choice in the vote and develops a type of group think amongst the voters. In other words, “why vote for candidate A when the votes of California will put candidate B over the top.” Thus, the EC actually promotes diversity of choice.
Thank you,
Tim F
Thanks for replying Tim!
When I say that that the EC was a failure from its inception, I mean that it did not and has not done what it was originally intended to do, that being to assemble a qualified field of electors to independently decide on the best man to lead. Though there are other things proponents of the EC indicate as positives, the original intent of the EC can rightly be called an abject failure.
You talk a lot about how the EC serves rural communities which would be underserved in a popular vote system. I find significant flaw in your argument. True, some rural communities (those in states without urban centers) get an outsized representation in the final tally, but what about those rural communities in states like California? Their votes count for nothing, and they end up even more disenfranchised then urban voters in the same states, whose votes at least count for something, albeit less than a Wyoming or Alaskan native. So though it may be true that some rural voters are given a say, the vast majority of rural voters are just as (if not more) underserved by the Electoral College system as their urban neighbors.
As I’ve just illustrated, the EC creates a scarily well-defined caste system where the worth of people’s vote can easily be graphed (rural voters in populated states< urban voters in populated states<rural voters in less populated states). This is blatant and horrific disenfranchisement and is indicative of the failed, antidemocratic system which underserves all of us.
Thank You So Much For Replying!
Seneca L Roach
Senaca,
The first problem that would come with changing or altogether throwing out the EC is that it’s just not realistic. Such an upheaval in a political system would cause huge changes and there would probably be numerous issues associated with the new system. Of course, I am not simply saying we should keep the EC because it is working and what has worked, but more so because it does truly allow for better representation. Regardless of how you want to look at it, more populated and metropolitan areas are going to be blue thus creating a total imbalance when compared to rural states. Essentially, the popular vote method would actually create less representation for the American people and lead to further polarization.