We are trying a new feature at Homespun Bloggers. Each week we will all take on a topic, and add our own thoughts on it. This week the issue is the Electoral College. I don’t have strong feelings on the subject, but I’ve not heard anything proposed that would work better. We have a diverse group, so comparisons should be interesting. As new posts are added, I’ll attempt to add them on my own post. If not, they will all be available at the above link.
****************************
Is it time for the U.S. to end the Electoral College? I’m sure there are many who believe so. They want this to be a democracy, with direct election of our President. I can understand the frustration some feel. When the candidates spend the entire run-up in a select group of states, it seems that the rest of us are being ignored.
Actually, that’s precisely what the Electoral College is supposed to prevent. The concept was to keep voters from selecting a “favorite son” and split the vote so strongly that the election would end up in the Congress. It was also a means of keeping the more populous states from having undue influence. I’m sure that in looking at the focus on Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania, the theory seems to have been disproven. In reality, it works quite well. Some of that is explained in this history from the Federal Election Commission site. Twenty pages, but quite readable and informative. Every state, regardless of population, has at least three electors. And that provides more balance–not complete–but more.
The concept is still quite valid, although there may be reason to modify it in some way once again. But the modification will have to come through state legislatures or Amendment. The Constitution leaves the procedure up to each state, and not all do it in exactly the same way.
What the EC systems does well, is restrict the most populous states from overpowering the election. This was pretty obvious this year, where New York and California went strongly for Kerry, but didn’t tip the scales. Bush did still win the popular vote, but in 2000 that wasn’t the case. It also prevents the need for Congressional involvement in elections like 1992 and 1996 where no candidate received a majority of the popular vote, but Clinton won enough electoral votes to take over the Oval Office. Something the Founding Fathers were quite concerned with was this separation of powers, and keeping selection of the Executive Branch out of the hands of the Legislative Branch. If an election can be determined without recourse to Congress or the Courts, it needs to be done that way. And I’ve not heard a single proposal that does that as well.
More thoughts here:
About all really know of the Electoral College is that I applied there and was turned down….my SAT’s weren’t high enough.
Comment by Wallace-Midland Texas — November 16, 2004 @ 3:31 pm