A College That's Hard to Defend
The LA Times ran a commentary today defending the Electoral College by Benjamin Zycher of the conservative think tank, the Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy. Zycher offers two arguments in favor of the Electoral College. First, by forcing candidates to focus on battleground states, the Electoral College pushes candidates to broaden their geographic base. Second, the Electoral College fosters the two-party system, which in turn forces candidates toward the center of the political spectrum. Zycher dismisses alternatives one by one as follows: “A direct popular election under a plurality rule would tend to yield candidacies (and parties) with strong regional and ideological loyalties, with a goal of simply piling up more raw votes than anyone else. A runoff system would give disproportionate bargaining power to regional and ideological fringes. A system of allocating electoral college votes in proportion to the popular vote (now proposed for Colorado) would induce candidates to shift their efforts and resources to uncompetitive states, where there are large numbers of electoral college votes to be had.”
Zycher’s arguments are seriously flawed. First, there is no basis for the assertion that the current system of creating battleground states encourages candidates to seek a broader form of geographic support. Rather, it tends to create smaller localized regional bases, just as the primary system creates odd patterns of local power. For example, issues of ethanol production are given disproportionate discussion and support in national politics, not because ethanol is such a good idea. It’s not. We’ve been investing in ethanol for years and it still costs more to produce than the energy it yields. Ethanol gets such support because of the unique power of Iowa, a corn-producing state, over the primary system. Candidates are well-advised to devise highly regionalized policy positions that mean very little to most of the country to appease Iowa – and to better their chances of winning the primaries.
Similarly, the Electoral College process requires candidates to focus on the highly regional issues of battleground states. For example, voters in New York and California are concerned about very important issues of special concern to their high-population densities - chief among them is security. And while the concerns of these behemoth states are local in nature, they have enormous impact on national life. Consider the effects on the national economy after the attacks in New York. But these issues are not fully discussed in the current process because New York and California are not battleground states. There is no need to talk about their issues.
So instead of talking about these vastly important issues, candidates are forced to focus on issues of particular concern to smaller battleground states like New Mexico, Ohio, and yes, Iowa. The presidency could be decided based on a candidate’s stance on ethanol - or any number of highly localized issues. The Electoral College process, by creating the concept of battleground states and red/blue states, forces candidates to be more localized in unimportant ways. Broad geographic support is important, but it is important to get right.
Second, as I’ve discussed before, the two-party system is fine, but it does not push candidates toward the center of the ideological spectrum. Rather, it pushes candidates to the center of their particular party’s ideological spectrum. We get Republicans in the mainstream of Republican values and Democrats in the mainstream of Democratic values. We do not get candidates in the mainstream of American values. No candidate on the extreme edge of either party is likely to get elected because our country is so evenly split right now.
Voters, as rational beings, are more likely to vote for the candidate who is closer to them in terms of ideology. They are also more likely to vote within their party if given a choice. But there are breaking points. If a Democratic candidate falls too far to the right, a fair portion of Democrats on the left either won’t vote (seeing no difference between Democrats and Republicans), or will vote for a third-party candidate with no chance of winning (who is closer ideologically to the voter), thus “giving” their vote to the Republicans. If a Democrat is too far to the left, a fair number of Democrats on the right will either not vote (seeing no point) or will vote for a Republican (who is now closer to the voter ideologically). The same, in reverse, is true of Republicans. Either way, it behooves candidates to fall within the middle spectrum of their own party's ideology. If you want MORE extreme elected officials who are further from the national mainstream, the two-party system is great.
Once you understand the flaws in Zycher’s arguments in favor of the Electoral college, his arguments against alternative methods fall apart. To achive the goals Zycher purports to extol – broad geographic support without too much regionalism and more mainstream candidates - the only method that actually achives both goals is the instant run-off election process.
One last thing about Zycher. He is a senior analyst for an organization committed to coming up with free-market solutions to problems. Nothing wrong with that. But in endorsing the Electoral College, Zycher is supporting a system that is the opposite of free market. Direct democracy is a simple and pure example of free market principles. The Electoral College is more akin to a highly regulated and subsidized market where people in certain battleground states are given a competitive leg-up through governmental interference. By endorsing the Electoral College, Zycher has revealed that supporting George Bush (who is only president because of the Electoral College) is more important to him than the basic principles of his organization. This is the same kind of fuzzy logic and lack of principles our conservative states-rights Supreme Court Justices displayed when they used the power of their federal government positions to interfere with Florida's right to conduct its recount according to its own procedures in 2000. I don't mind partisan opinions. I do mind when partisan opinions are disguised as principles.
Zycher’s arguments are seriously flawed. First, there is no basis for the assertion that the current system of creating battleground states encourages candidates to seek a broader form of geographic support. Rather, it tends to create smaller localized regional bases, just as the primary system creates odd patterns of local power. For example, issues of ethanol production are given disproportionate discussion and support in national politics, not because ethanol is such a good idea. It’s not. We’ve been investing in ethanol for years and it still costs more to produce than the energy it yields. Ethanol gets such support because of the unique power of Iowa, a corn-producing state, over the primary system. Candidates are well-advised to devise highly regionalized policy positions that mean very little to most of the country to appease Iowa – and to better their chances of winning the primaries.
Similarly, the Electoral College process requires candidates to focus on the highly regional issues of battleground states. For example, voters in New York and California are concerned about very important issues of special concern to their high-population densities - chief among them is security. And while the concerns of these behemoth states are local in nature, they have enormous impact on national life. Consider the effects on the national economy after the attacks in New York. But these issues are not fully discussed in the current process because New York and California are not battleground states. There is no need to talk about their issues.
So instead of talking about these vastly important issues, candidates are forced to focus on issues of particular concern to smaller battleground states like New Mexico, Ohio, and yes, Iowa. The presidency could be decided based on a candidate’s stance on ethanol - or any number of highly localized issues. The Electoral College process, by creating the concept of battleground states and red/blue states, forces candidates to be more localized in unimportant ways. Broad geographic support is important, but it is important to get right.
Second, as I’ve discussed before, the two-party system is fine, but it does not push candidates toward the center of the ideological spectrum. Rather, it pushes candidates to the center of their particular party’s ideological spectrum. We get Republicans in the mainstream of Republican values and Democrats in the mainstream of Democratic values. We do not get candidates in the mainstream of American values. No candidate on the extreme edge of either party is likely to get elected because our country is so evenly split right now.
Voters, as rational beings, are more likely to vote for the candidate who is closer to them in terms of ideology. They are also more likely to vote within their party if given a choice. But there are breaking points. If a Democratic candidate falls too far to the right, a fair portion of Democrats on the left either won’t vote (seeing no difference between Democrats and Republicans), or will vote for a third-party candidate with no chance of winning (who is closer ideologically to the voter), thus “giving” their vote to the Republicans. If a Democrat is too far to the left, a fair number of Democrats on the right will either not vote (seeing no point) or will vote for a Republican (who is now closer to the voter ideologically). The same, in reverse, is true of Republicans. Either way, it behooves candidates to fall within the middle spectrum of their own party's ideology. If you want MORE extreme elected officials who are further from the national mainstream, the two-party system is great.
Once you understand the flaws in Zycher’s arguments in favor of the Electoral college, his arguments against alternative methods fall apart. To achive the goals Zycher purports to extol – broad geographic support without too much regionalism and more mainstream candidates - the only method that actually achives both goals is the instant run-off election process.
One last thing about Zycher. He is a senior analyst for an organization committed to coming up with free-market solutions to problems. Nothing wrong with that. But in endorsing the Electoral College, Zycher is supporting a system that is the opposite of free market. Direct democracy is a simple and pure example of free market principles. The Electoral College is more akin to a highly regulated and subsidized market where people in certain battleground states are given a competitive leg-up through governmental interference. By endorsing the Electoral College, Zycher has revealed that supporting George Bush (who is only president because of the Electoral College) is more important to him than the basic principles of his organization. This is the same kind of fuzzy logic and lack of principles our conservative states-rights Supreme Court Justices displayed when they used the power of their federal government positions to interfere with Florida's right to conduct its recount according to its own procedures in 2000. I don't mind partisan opinions. I do mind when partisan opinions are disguised as principles.
posted by Charles S. Russell at 10:44 AM
4 Comments:
Although I am suspicious of the actual machinations of the College, I don't know whether I'd say that it was "inaccurate." The states determine how to use their College members: some states allow for proportional voting, some are "all or nothing" states. If you meant that the College picked the candidate that did not receive more votes than any other, then I guess you are correct.
I certainly can see that the major states are almost ignored in a Presidential election; campaigning is reserved for those states that the candidates feel that they can swing. I don't like the idea of Iowa/Penn/Ohio/Florida determining the election basically on their own (which is the way that Bush/Kerry have been campaigning) but absent the EC, the opposite would certainly be true. Winning in CA/NY/TX etc. would be critical. The big citys would determine who won, to the exclusion of the small towns. Might that not create an even greater feeling of disenfranchisement and/or voter apathy in the more rural areas of the country? Who would bother to campaign in the state of Iowa when he/she has the city of Boston to lose?
Thanks for the comments, Dan, and welcome aboard. I look forward to reading about the bar studies. You'll do fine!
As for the absence of an Electoral College forcing candidates to choose to ignore small towns, I don't think that will happen. Look at yesterday's results on CNN.com. You can look at each state on a county by county basis. Even if you didn't know where the big towns are, you could tell by the electoral map. Counties with big cities are shades of blue, counties without are shades of red. And Bush won a majority of the popular vote. There is a very real strategy of winning the presidency without winning a single city. Focus on suburban and rural issues, and you can get a majority of Americans to vote for you. Being a country that is so big with so much space, we have a LOT of people who live in more sparsely populated areas. It would be very risk for anyone to ignore them.
It is also important to remember that my suggestion is not just to abolish the Electoral College. I don't want a system of plurality-rule without the Electoral College. That's dangerous. Instead, I favor abolishing the Electoral College and replacing it with the requirement that a candidate win a majority of votes to win - and use an instant run-off method. Any system that requires a majority to win will always have legitimacy.
Thanks Charlie-- we'll see how much time I have to write while cramming my head full of Mandatory Joinder and CA equivalent 12(b)(6) motions.
As an aside, The Daily Show's coverage was quite funny, especially the map they put up early in the show of the United States in this election (with just the battleground states), "Id-owa" and "Florid-ania." I felt like that was true, my vote was taken for granted, while somehow coal mining became a major election issue.
I think that Bush won a popular majority by taking key cities in addition to the majority of the rural areas; a grassroots-y campaign as you suggest (meaning focusing on the rural rather than the population centers) would be a much more hard-fought campaign for someone not focusing on "values" and "morality" that historically appeal to the generally right leaning conservatives outside cities. Kerry could not have won that campaign. I think that strategy is limited to a Bush-like candidate, and I think such a strategy would force the opponent into the decision that Kerry faced: cut and run from the rural areas (such as the South) or slog it out and hope for a few voters.
Beyond that -- if the College was replaced by your majority requirement, wouldn't this immediate run off cause more havoc than it is worth? If we were to (somehow) open up the election process to a third (or more) party, it is likely that no one would win a majority of the popular vote. Then we'd all go back to the polls to vote again? We're lucky to have 70% turn outs now as it is on Presidential elections. Don't you think that a second election would be marked with increased voter apathy and signifigantly increased spending (for that second election? Darryl tells his cousin Darryl and his other cousin Darryl that their vote doesn't count because no one will receive a majority, so they all wait to vote until the run-off. At the same time, Mandi, Candi, and Brandi all don't want to be bothered by voting a second time because they are burnt out on all the advertising, incessant media coverage, and the whole voting thing, dude.
Assuming a plurality, I think we would then definitely have some even larger segment of the population voting for the lesser of two idiots.
No no no! The whole point of the reform I suggest is an INSTANT run-off process. No second round of voting. You vote in the election and run-off at the same time. Here's the simple version - I'll go
into more detail below. The simple version is this - I walk into the voting booth and I vote for the candidate I like the best. Then I think, if he doesn't win, who is my # 2 choice? Then I mark that candidate as #2. And so on for as long as I want. If somebody wins
the majority - great. All the ranking is never used. If someone doesn't win the majority, then we start using the ranking in the run-off.
Several states and foreign countries now use them. San Francisco uses it. It works like this. When you vote, you understand that a candidate needs a majority to win. So when you vote, you have the option of ranking the candidates in your order of preference. Assume,
just for the sake of argument, that I am a fiscal conservative who just loves Ross Perot. If he doesn't win, my second choice is George H.W. Bush. I hate Clinton and don't want him to win. In our current
process, I would probably not vote for Perot because I know I am just throwing my vote away, and in effect supporting Clinton. In an instant run-off situation, I vote by ranking Ross Perot #1, Bush #2, and not ranking Clinton. When the votes are tallied, if any candidate
receives a majority of #1 votes, that candidate wins. (In the 1992 election, no one did.) So we would move to the run-off process. Because we ranked candidates, the run-off is instantaneous and there is no second round of voting. I chose to take part in the run-off
process when I ranked the candidates. The way it works is, the candidate receiving the least amount of votes is eliminated and we do not count #1 votes for that candidate. We instead allocate the #2 votes from those ballots. So in my case, Ross Perot got the least votes, he is thrown out, and my #2 vote would go to ush. Now we count again, and Bush receives a majority, so he wins.
It is actually much simpler than it sounds. It has a LOT of advantages. Or rather, it encourages a lot of things I consider to be advantages. It fosters third parties - which I think is a good thing. I am no longer afraid to vote my conscience. I can vote for Perot or Forbes or Nader without feeling like I am dooming he "real" candidate. Third parties are no longer spoilers. So they'll start becoming more mainstream and will help bring diversity to our elected offices. The major parties will have to start reaching out to others to build coalitions. Second, it guarantees that the candidate most people want in office wins. Much as I liked Clinton, I think most Americans would have preffered Bush. Perot was a spoiler. Just like Nader was a spoiler for Gore. Third, and this is the hardest benefit to grasp theoretically, instant run-off elections make the election process more civil. Candidates can't focus just on appealing to their
base - you can't win if you spend the whole campaign demonizing your opponent. It doesn't help you, if you are a Democrat, to rip on Republicans and argue that you'd have to be stupid to vote for Bush. It doesn't help you if you are a Republican to smear liberals and New England and the Coast. You have to appeal to those people so you can at least pick up #2 rankings. In actual practice, places that have implemented instant run-offs have seen much more civil discourse. Candidates and their supporters are much more inclined to say, "I disagree with my oponent and I would do things slightly differently, but his positions do have some merit, and he'd be my second choice to run things." Candidates frequently endorse each other. Can you imagine? In other words, it helps bring us together in the center as opposed to polarizing us to the extremes.
I know it is just a procedural issue, but it is one I am really passionate about. And I am honest in understanding that it might not work to the advantage of my personal political views. It would have meant, possibly, a second term for Bush and no Clinton presidency.
As for what a straight majority popular vote would do to campaign strategy - I can't predict entirely. It would certainly change things. You could look at the Electoral map and calculate based on population how important your vote is now, which I did (Californians count as .85 of a person. North Dakotans each count as 2.5 people.) But that isn't really accurate either because the current process is pretty much all or nothing. State Legislatures in all but one state allocate all the votes to the plurality winner. So Republicans in California count as 0 people. Democrats in California count as 1.7 people. That's not right. I know rural and sparsely populated areas are going to get less attention than they do now. But that's the way it ought to be. But I really don't expect them to be completely ignored, either. I suspect campaign strategy will look to other national advertising as its model. Wal-Mart was built on appealing to rural communities and is now the world's largest retailer. Ford was built with small rural dealerships. Developing a base of rural support is not only possible, it is smart.
Post a Comment
<< Home