Check this out for the latest electoral college breakdown.
Speaking of the electoral college. Many years ago I read a short little paperback that explained the system and largely defended it. I'm sure newer books have been written about the system pro and con.
I'm dusting off my memory of what I read in that book and here was how they defended the electoral college.
(1) The US has benefited from the political stability of the two-party system. In popular vote models, the role of minor party candidates could prove disruptive. If people think politics in the USA is "Balkanized" now, imagine how it would be if minor party candidates can horse trade their voters in a popular vote system. As it is now, minor party candidates almost never get electoral votes and thus their impact is minimized.
Some will say Nader cost Gore the election. Possibly so. He got 2.88 million votes nationally. If there was a popular vote system, imagine if Nader on October 15 approached the major candidates and said, "I have a deal for you. If you give me X, Y, Z then I'll drop out of the race and tell my voters to support you." Admittedly, Nader's ego was so big he wouldn't have done it but what if in the future we go to a popular vote system and the minor party candidate is willing to make deals?
(2) The electoral college also prevents politicians from catering exclusively to urban voters. If the goal is just to get the most votes then candidates would only visit states with lots of voters and run ads in major media markets. This would result in a politics that caters to large population centers i.e. big cities and counties.
Take a look at the 2000 map. Bush carried only three "big" states: Texas, Florida and Ohio. Gore carried five: California, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois and Michigan.
A popular vote system would drive the politicians to the big states and the big media markets. And we all know what kind of politics dominate big cities? The "fly-over" part of America would be ignored!
Would any politician go out to New Mexico or Iowa?
But if Iowa and New Mexico's electoral votes matter then politicans go out there.
In the end, politicans will never view all 50 states equally in terms of campaign value. But with the electoral college system, a mix of big states and small states will get visited.
(3) Changing the system would have unintended consequences like the ones mentioned and who knows what other ones. One scenario would be Florida-like recounts in all 50 states in a close election!! I'm sure imaginative people could come up with more.
In any case, the system has given a winner without popular vote victory very rarely (1824, 1876, 1888, 2000) and the country did NOT fall apart. As the old saying goes: if it ain't broke why fix it.
No comments:
Post a Comment