A Fair Vote or a Fraudulent Argument?
By Thomas Lindaman (03/27/06)
Since the 2000 Presidential elections, there has been a call to change the way we vote for President. Among the suggestions on the table is doing away with the Electoral College (who just missed the NCAA men's basketball tournament this year) and replacing it with a popular election. As time has gone on, the movement has gained a little steam since we don't want a repeat of Election 2000.
Among the groups pushing this initiative is The Center for Voting and Democracy, a non-profit group headed up by 1980 Presidential candidate John Anderson. The Center launched a website, FairVote.org, to make their case. So far, their efforts have caught the attention of major publications like the New York Times and the Chicago Sun-Times.
On the surface, the argument in favor of a popular vote for President makes sense. After all, we elect every other government official, save for federal judges, by popular vote. Not to mention, we have more information at our fingertips than ever before. We're smarter, more capable, and much snappier dressers than the Founding Fathers were. Surely we're grown up enough to choose our Presidents by popular vote, right?
Well...I'd have to say no. From where I sit, the Founding Fathers were wise beyond their years when they set up the Electoral College because they foresaw what we modern Americans fail to see. Today, we tend to vote for schmucks. Does anyone seriously think even one tenth of the people running for President within the past 20+ years have been the best and brightest leaders our country has to offer? Of course not! Since the 60s, politics has moved away from substance and ability and moved towards image and money. Let's not forget the candidates from Election 2004 were a rich man who skipped more work than Michael Moore's sponge bath specialist and another rich man who didn't have much of a track record except for a family name and trading Sammy Sosa to the Chicago Cubs. Until we get better candidates, we should hold off on changing how Presidents are elected.
And while we're making improvements, can we shore up our own knowledge in the civics area? Seriously, folks, we're not much better at knowing about issues than the people we elect to run the country are. A recent survey shows Americans know more about "The Simpsons" than about the Bill of Rights. Let's see... knowing the name of Bart's teacher or knowing that you have the right to face a trial by jury in front of a jury of your peers... Decisions, decisions.
And far too often, we're making the wrong decisions out of willful or unknowing ignorance. Most people today don't understand the basics about the Electoral College, so that makes it easier for The Center for Voting and Democracy to make its argument in favor of the popular vote as being the most fair way to choose a President. But is it? Not really, and the fairness argument shows just how little the advocates of the popular vote for President know about the Electoral College.
When we vote for President every four years, we don't really vote for President. What we're voting for is a slate of electors representing one of the two major parties, and that voting is done via the popular vote. From there, most states have a provision that the electors can vote for whomever they choose, and that voting is done by...you guessed it, a popular vote. This is the part of the equation the advocates of a popular vote for President overlook. It may not be a direct means of voting, but it's still a popular vote nonetheless.
So, what would happen if we used a more direct method? For one thing, many states would not have an equivalent say in who becomes President. Granted, that's the case it is now, but what wouldn't be the same is that the focus of voting wouldn't be on getting a state to vote for you so much as getting cities to vote for you. After all, these are where the people are! Smaller towns and small cities wouldn't be anything more than refueling stops for Presidential candidates on their way to bigger cities, like Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York City.
Come to think of it, don't the states that have these cities already have considerable power within the Electoral College?
The popular vote idea has caught fire in California because voters there are upset that their votes don't have more of an impact on the outcome of elections. Their argument is that this gives states, like my home state of Iowa, more of a chance to affect who wins elections. The popular vote, they argue, would give everyone an equal chance to shape the country.
But what they don't tell you is that a popular vote would give them more of a chance to shape the country since California is one of the largest states in the country. Even though we'd have the same number of votes (well, except if you're a dead person in Chicago), California's votes would have more of an impact just out of sheer volume of single votes. A close election could be swung in the favor of one side or the other once California's votes are counted, while Iowa's probably wouldn't have much of an impact one way or the other.
But there is a possible ulterior motive at work here. With a popular vote, Democrats stand a much better chance of winning Presidential elections because there tends to be a higher concentration of Democrat voters in larger cities, as well as in college towns. With the Electoral College, those votes get balanced out, by and large, by voters in other parts of the state or within Republican enclaves in the cities and college towns. Instead of having that balance, a popular vote would pretty much leave Democrats in control of the Presidential election process. All they would have to do is keep promising to give their voters the perks they always promise (yet rarely deliver), and the White House might as well be called the Blue State House.
Perhaps the best reason I can give to keep the Electoral College is the fact it isn't broken. What happened in 2000 isn't a flaw in the system and shouldn't be seen as such. Winning the popular vote isn't a guarantee that you will win the Electoral College vote. It usually happens that way, but it doesn't mean it always happens that way. Think of the Electoral College like an old car. Over time, a car can have small problems that won't impact its overall performance. You wouldn't dump a car that has 100,000 miles on it, starts and runs like a dream, and is easy to maintain just because the cigarette lighter doesn't work. And just because a President once in a great while doesn't win both the popular and Electoral College votes isn't a reason to get rid of the Electoral College. Now, if the Electoral College had elected Al Gore...
Simply put, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The way we elect Presidents is fine the way it is. We don't need anybody tinkering with it or replacing it just yet, and until someone comes up with an alternative that is better and doesn't have political implications favoring one party over another, I'm dancing with the date I brought to the party.
And I'm sticking with the Electoral College, too.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Thomas Lindaman
