The biggest problem with the Electoral College? Laws.
I'm not an American. I don't live there. I am impacted by the vote because my country is physically attached to the US via the longest contiguous border on earth and they are our largest trading partner. But, really, I'm writing about this because I find it interesting more than anything.
The Electoral College in the US is a funny thing. But, probably not for the reasons most people think. I would argue that while it stops metropolis cities from controlling the vote (which I think is actually adds a bit to its merit), that is not (based on the constitution, etc...) why it exists. It exists as a safety check.
It is a bit of shame, in my opinion, that it has historically been largely just a rubber stamping process. Of course, it is also a system fraught with questions on how to legitimize it. The biggest thing going against it, in my opinion, however is all of the laws various states have governing how electors can vote. Some states have no laws. Some mandate the elector must vote based on the results in their area. And some say the electors must vote with the popular vote.
If ALL electors aren't EQUALLY free to vote with their conscious, why have it at all? As it stands right now, there are states where it can't (legally) perform the duty the institution was created for.
Of course, if you rid yourself of that. What do you replace it with? A popular vote? Given Trump supporters won with far fewer votes, I would say you'd have a hard time convincing people to go that route. I also think that the Electoral College has some flaws. I'm not sure it would have changed the outcome in this past election, but I think some electors represent too few people. The fewer people, the more powerful the each persons vote is. And yes, that is needed if you don't want a few very large groupings of people to control the vote... but at the same time... despite winning the popular vote, Trump beat Clinton in the Electoral College by a FAR WIDER gap than Clinton's popular vote lead.
So, while those in the major cities shouldn't dictate the vote for those in rural areas, the opposite should be true as well. And I think the urbanites feel (and perhaps legitimately) that the vote was dictated by rural dwelling Americans. But, that is the difficult part to sort out. Big cities are not only big. They also grow faster than smaller cities. Unless additional electors are added or boundaries are adjusted to accommodate, each year, the urban voters votes become less valuable.
If nothing is done about it, we will continue to see this trend where presidents are elected primarily by the will of rural Americans. Major cities will only swing the vote when the rural residents are divided.
The Electoral College in the US is a funny thing. But, probably not for the reasons most people think. I would argue that while it stops metropolis cities from controlling the vote (which I think is actually adds a bit to its merit), that is not (based on the constitution, etc...) why it exists. It exists as a safety check.
It is a bit of shame, in my opinion, that it has historically been largely just a rubber stamping process. Of course, it is also a system fraught with questions on how to legitimize it. The biggest thing going against it, in my opinion, however is all of the laws various states have governing how electors can vote. Some states have no laws. Some mandate the elector must vote based on the results in their area. And some say the electors must vote with the popular vote.
If ALL electors aren't EQUALLY free to vote with their conscious, why have it at all? As it stands right now, there are states where it can't (legally) perform the duty the institution was created for.
Of course, if you rid yourself of that. What do you replace it with? A popular vote? Given Trump supporters won with far fewer votes, I would say you'd have a hard time convincing people to go that route. I also think that the Electoral College has some flaws. I'm not sure it would have changed the outcome in this past election, but I think some electors represent too few people. The fewer people, the more powerful the each persons vote is. And yes, that is needed if you don't want a few very large groupings of people to control the vote... but at the same time... despite winning the popular vote, Trump beat Clinton in the Electoral College by a FAR WIDER gap than Clinton's popular vote lead.
So, while those in the major cities shouldn't dictate the vote for those in rural areas, the opposite should be true as well. And I think the urbanites feel (and perhaps legitimately) that the vote was dictated by rural dwelling Americans. But, that is the difficult part to sort out. Big cities are not only big. They also grow faster than smaller cities. Unless additional electors are added or boundaries are adjusted to accommodate, each year, the urban voters votes become less valuable.
If nothing is done about it, we will continue to see this trend where presidents are elected primarily by the will of rural Americans. Major cities will only swing the vote when the rural residents are divided.
Comments
Post a Comment