I never thought I'd be one to rant or take my angers out on a computer keyboard, but this has bothered me since I discovered the true nature of politics. I detest the electoral college.
Do you know why it was created? Becuase the founding fathers of the US believed that the general public was not educated enough or just didn't care enough to vote reasonably. It was understood, however, that the electoral college would vote the way the public wanted them too, for that is the nature of our government: that the people should be accurately represented. Of course, if the people wanted a cult leader or someone, the electoral college was supposed to reftify that. Fine.
But this is where I get irritated. It is not a democratic institution in this democracy of ours. It's really not needed anymore. I think the vast majority of people understand politics well enough to pick the person that would do the most for them and their position in life. It's cumbersome and unconstitutional. In fact, if one were to sue the government and attempt to have the electoral college overthrown, they would have ample grounds to do this. But they probably would not win. Why?
Because no one wants to come up with a new system. It would be difficult to get the electoral college thrown out,a nd there is no guarantee that the ensuing institution would work. It would take a lot of effort a lot of people's toes would be stepped on. But I think it would be worth it. I don't believe there has to be an institution to take its place. I think that now we have the capabilities and the know-how to make a direct democracy, a true democracy work. I don't think that this will ever happen, but I'm of the opinion that if you're going to have a democracy, if you say you want your citizens to have power, you should give them power. NOT the semblance of power that you hope to fool them with because you want them to think they have a say in the government, that some political efficacy actually exists where it doesn't...
I wan't others' opinions on this, so please comment.
The electoral college exists to protect those living in rural areas. It's to prevent the tyranny of the majority. Without the electoral college in place, winners would always be elected by people from the cities as that's where most of the population is. As such, only their interests would be represented. It neglects farmers. The electoral college gives farmers more influence as a group (though not a proportional influence). Also, the electoral college gives more power to the states. It distinguished between each state and gives even smaller states some degree of power. Rhode Island is guaranteed at least a couple of delegates or electoral votes even though it is such a small state. That means that candidates must also appeal to smaller states and not focus on the most populous states. It really is a measure of protection and not just to disenfranchise the public.
I see what you mean, and my only argument is that candidates generally do ignore less populated states and concentrate on the biggies with the most electoral votes and delegates: New York, California, Florida. I understand that the electoral college was meant to balance the differences between populations, but those imbalances still aren't being fixed by the electoral college. I think that if it doesn't fix the problem, there's not much of a point to it.
I just want to clarify that many of the accusations that you have against our democracy is because it is a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. The representative democracy allows the people to have an indirect power through electing representatives and through systems such as the electoral college. On the other hand, a direct democracy allows the people themselves to deliberate on all issues and to make policy decisions themselves. I think one of the reasons why we do not lean more toward the direct democracy approach, as you suggest is because the nation is just too large and too populated to give the people more direct influence. Also, a lot of people choose not to participate in politics and there are still some coattail effects and voting based alone on party identification rather than on individual candidates. I am not so sure that as many people are as educated about issues as you suggest.
I get what you're saying. You're right: a lot of my issues with the electoral college is because it's an institution of a representative democracy. I think that people should have greater political efficacy here. If it's to be assumed that people have a greater amount of power in America, then I think they should have that power in reality. Albeit, there are a lot of idiots out there, and you're also right about people voting just out of party recognition (I also don't like parties. I think it should be more about the individual.) Allow me to clean it up a bit: I don't think that getting rid of the electoral college would necessarily lead to something that did work... only that the electoral college doesn't work, and I don't think we should keep a broken system and that there is the possibility of installing something better.
The electoral college is slightly undemocratic in that it shifts a little bit of power from the large states to the smaller states. Without this shift, the Presidential campaigns would only take place in the 5 largest states. The founding fathers were not interested in democracy. They designed a representative republic.
And of course the founding fathers were correct not to trust the people. The people voting now are stupider than ever. They vote on emotional things like how people look and on the basis of fine sounding promises that warm the heart but which can never be kept because we can't afford them.
The electoral college process has been remarkably consistent in representing the popular will. It has only gone in a different direction from the popular vote like twice in our history.
It has been my experience that most of the people who complain about the electoral college are Democrats. But Democrats have even less trust in the wisdom of voters than Republicans. For example, look at the super delegate process in the Democratic Primary process. Why would the political will of some 800 Democratic Party elities be allowed to overturn the collective wisdom of millions of grassroots Democratic voters. I think you should address the lack of Democracy in the Democratic Party before you tackle a change in the Constitution.
Most campaigning does take place in the five most populated states. It takes place in other states too, I'm not negating that. And yes people vote on looks and what-not. But think of it this way: A lot of people voted for JFK because they found him good-looking. He was only a two-term senator before he got elected to office and didn't have a lot of political experience. It wouldn't be incorrect to say that his dad pulled a lot of strings to get him into positions of power. And yet, his proposed (LBJ was the one who got most of them passed due to JFK's asassination) legislation has done a lot of good for our country. He probably would've mucked up Viet Nam considerably, but I'm pretty sure anyone would've.
I'm a moderate, but I am leaning towards the Democratic side for this election. I really don't have any sense of party affiliation, however. Honestly, I think the party system is whacked, and the Democratic party in particular is in shambles. They have nothing on the Republican party when it comes to handling their super-delegates and their conventions and all that. The Democratic party has too many competing interests within itself to handle themselves competently. I don't know a whole lot more about it then that, but I'll probably look into it.
The only other thing in your post I have to address is this: if the electoral college makes it possible to do the opposite of the people's will, even if it's only happened twice, how democratic or representative can it be? I believe that the electoral college having the ability to disregard the people's will makes it essentially in opposition to what a representative democracy should be.
The founders had no interest in Democracy. They set up a Representative REPUBLIC. Don't they teach that in school anymore?
The founders very much wanted the electoral college to be able to do the opposite of the people's will on occassion. They had little trust in the judgement of the people and their mistrust was well-founded and if anything it is more valid today then it was when they wrote the Constitution.
Our people are asleep at the switch. If they were educated on the issues and paying attention to the misdeeds of our representatives about 80% of the scumbags in Congress would be out on the streets. If our Senators were elected by the State Legislatures as the Founders designed it, we might have some competent people in that body rather than the preening bunch of corrupt and incompetent political hacks who our ignorant electorate keeps electing time after time after time.
We would have a lot better government if we gave a lot less people the voting franchise. For one thing, people should be required to pass a civics test. Watching any news organization conduct a man-on-the-street interview is a frightening thing. Most can't name the three branches of government and most can't name the sitting vice-President. Why are these morons entrusted to pick our government and why would I want to run the risk of giving them even greater unchecked Democratic power? And after they pass the civics test they should be required to pass a means test. In what way is a person who lacks the mental accumen to run their own life well enough to earn a living for themselves qualified to pick a government that will be interfering with all of our lives? The founders understood this and limited the voting franchise to people who payed property taxes.
I understand it's a republic. But it's supposed to be a democratic one that mirrors the beliefs of the people, right? And yes, a lot of people are idiots, but who has the authority to decide that only the intelligent have the right to political power. That's bull- everyone should have the right to represent themselves politically, and if they make an ass of themselves, that's their issue. Look, here's how I see it- Either put all the power in the government, or give all the power to the people. Don't pretend that the people have power, because those intelligent enough to see the truth get frustrated at the fact that they can't effect any real change, short of holding troublesome protests that cause some degree of destructuction. Yeah, incompetence in leadership causes problems, but not even the electoral college could stop that from happening in the last two elections. Keep spouting your elitism, but unless something changes, you can't even call our government a representative republic.
I understand it's a republic. But it's supposed to be a democratic one that mirrors the beliefs of the people, right?
But you apparently don't understand why a republic is better than a democracy.
Our system is a democratic republic that almost (key concept) always mirrors the beliefs of the people. But the difference between a Republic and a Democracy is that there is a degree of separation between the voters and the policy. This is a check and balance that protects people from themselves. It recognizes that democracy is a bad system that will eventually fail if voters are allowed to vote on things directly because they will vote for things like handing themselves money or they will elect a smooth talking demagogue. (Hitler was a product of a democratic vote for example.) A republic is a compromise which recognizes that while democracy is a terrible system, allowing people a strong say in their government is slightly better than any other form of government that humans, with all their failing, have yet devised.
The Electoral College is a feature of our republican form of government. It is one of the many checks and balances that our founders incorporated to protect us from direct democracy. It has a very strong tendency to mirror the will of the majority at the national level and it has NEVER failed the mirror the will of the voters at the State level. It is a reasonable compromise that protects us from the chaos and evil of democracy but still delivers the benefits of representative government.
It was also a compromise to our Federalist system of government. The founders DELIBERATELY gave a slight edge to the smaller states. On a per capita basis, as a result of giving them an electoral vote for each Senator, they are slightly over-represented. This is essentially an extension of the exact same compromise that was made in giving each State two Senators regardless of size in the Senate and allocating members of the House to States based on population. It is a balancing act between large and small states and it has worked brilliantly. Our government sucks but it sucks less than almost every other government elsewhere in the world.
The Founders had brilliant ideas and if you go monkeying with their design you are going to get bad consequences. If you do away with the Electoral College you will essentially totally eliminate small states from the Presidential election process. Campaigns will be conducted exclusively in the 10 largest states. When the other 40 states start to feel they don't matter, our government is going to stop working. The President won't be their President. You'll have a President of 10 states and an imposed Dictator of 40 states.
I'm not ready to substitute the pie-eyed idealism of a few liberal college students about the wonders of direct democracy the for the proven and tested wisdom of our founders.
I'm getting a little tired of having my intelligence insulted. I get the system, alright? I understand it, but I think there are better ways out there. Just because I don't like something doesn't mean that I don't understand it.
And you're wrong: we monkey with our constitution all the time, sometimes for the worse and sometimes for the better (women suffrage, abolition of slaves, etc.) And guess what, if weren't for the "pie-eyed idealism of a few liberal college students" nothing would change. Idealism isn't a bad thing. It's what keeps us going, challenging the system, and making things better. Sure, it's neccessarry to make compromises, but that shade of idealism is a good thing. Say what you will, I stand by my argument, that yes, it may not get better with a different institution, but the electoral college is obsolete and doesn't work perfectly.