America's Worst College, according to Slate.com
Timothy Noah writes the "Chatterbox" collumn for Slate.com. He has written a series of articles called, "America's Worst College," in which he argues against the Electoral College system of electing our president. His articles are great. Usually his analysis is very tight. Often, he answers other writers defending the system. They are worth a read. The title of this post is a link to the latest, number 5 in the series. There are links to the previous 4 articles at the bottom of the article.
I have one gripe with his latest argument. He finishes his piece with the following: "Grant's argument [in favor of the Electoral College] is a pretty good example of one key distortion in our thinking brought about by the Electoral College. It makes imaginary victories look real. Who cares who won in a given state if the popular-vote difference was statistically insignificant? In reality, nobody won. But under the Electoral College system, somebody always has to win at the state level, or else you can't award state electors. Under a popular-vote system, we wouldn't have to play that game. We'd just count up the ballots and see who got the most votes."
What Noah misses here is that to some, state victories are not imaginary. Much as I dislike the electoral system and favor a popular vote instant-run-off system, I think it is a mistake to discount the feelings of those who favor strong state's rights. There are people, I have no idea how many, for whom the concept of individual state sovereignty is important. As with the individual nations that make up the Eurpoean Union, many in this country beleive that individual states need to retain, or regain, some independence. I don't mean secede, they just want to make sure their states are not lost in a national government. Strong individual states help prevent the tyranny of a powerful federal government. That was the concern of the founders. It remains a concern today.
So while I favor doing away with the particular states' rights anachronism of the Electoral College, I think it is important to understand and give credit to the fears and concerns of those who want to keep it. They do care about who wins individual states, and to convince them to make the change, we have to address those concerns, not dismiss them.
I have one gripe with his latest argument. He finishes his piece with the following: "Grant's argument [in favor of the Electoral College] is a pretty good example of one key distortion in our thinking brought about by the Electoral College. It makes imaginary victories look real. Who cares who won in a given state if the popular-vote difference was statistically insignificant? In reality, nobody won. But under the Electoral College system, somebody always has to win at the state level, or else you can't award state electors. Under a popular-vote system, we wouldn't have to play that game. We'd just count up the ballots and see who got the most votes."
What Noah misses here is that to some, state victories are not imaginary. Much as I dislike the electoral system and favor a popular vote instant-run-off system, I think it is a mistake to discount the feelings of those who favor strong state's rights. There are people, I have no idea how many, for whom the concept of individual state sovereignty is important. As with the individual nations that make up the Eurpoean Union, many in this country beleive that individual states need to retain, or regain, some independence. I don't mean secede, they just want to make sure their states are not lost in a national government. Strong individual states help prevent the tyranny of a powerful federal government. That was the concern of the founders. It remains a concern today.
So while I favor doing away with the particular states' rights anachronism of the Electoral College, I think it is important to understand and give credit to the fears and concerns of those who want to keep it. They do care about who wins individual states, and to convince them to make the change, we have to address those concerns, not dismiss them.
posted by Charles S. Russell at 10:22 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home