I get it.
More times than not, the Democrats have historically pulled the shortest straw in terms of losing the Electoral College despite winning a majority (or plurality) of the popular vote.
In fact, over the past century and a half, the Republicans are on a 4 election winning streak with such a scenario. Most of us are well aware that Bush defeated Gore in the 2000 election despite losing the popular vote. The same scenario happened in 1888 with Benjamin Harrison defeating Grover Cleveland and yet again with Rutherford Hayes defeating Samuel Tilden in 1876 after a bitter dispute over 20 electoral votes and a controversial final agreement.
More times than not, the Democrats have historically pulled the shortest straw in terms of losing the Electoral College despite winning a majority (or plurality) of the popular vote.
In fact, over the past century and a half, the Republicans are on a 4 election winning streak with such a scenario. Most of us are well aware that Bush defeated Gore in the 2000 election despite losing the popular vote. The same scenario happened in 1888 with Benjamin Harrison defeating Grover Cleveland and yet again with Rutherford Hayes defeating Samuel Tilden in 1876 after a bitter dispute over 20 electoral votes and a controversial final agreement.
But... the GOP needs to stop spiking the football and dancing like jackasses in the end zone for the moment because if the shoe were on the other foot right now, they'd be throwing their own fit and Fox News would have a new story to lead with for the next 12 months while pretending everyone actually cares.
The truth is the Democrats feel a little ripped off at the moment. God knows we're all only human and when we get ripped off we tend to get a little riled up and start hacking at the source of frustration with a machete when we probably should have been using a scalpel.
Now out of respect for people that I care about, I've been taking a back seat on this post election angst for the past month and a half because I believe that over time, this too shall pass. Hell, I'm still not over the Indians blowing that 3-1 lead in the World Series. But this current hot-button notion of "The electoral college is antiquated and needs to be abolished now!" is one I can't and won't bite my tongue on. You don't get to retroactively change the rules of a completed game because you don't like how it turned out.
Now out of respect for people that I care about, I've been taking a back seat on this post election angst for the past month and a half because I believe that over time, this too shall pass. Hell, I'm still not over the Indians blowing that 3-1 lead in the World Series. But this current hot-button notion of "The electoral college is antiquated and needs to be abolished now!" is one I can't and won't bite my tongue on. You don't get to retroactively change the rules of a completed game because you don't like how it turned out.
First and most importantly, we already DO use the popular vote. We are a nation of 50 sovereign states. "Sovereign" essentially means that each state has its own self-governed entity. It has its own unique voting laws that include rules on voting registration and early voting. In these 50 states plus D.C., we count electoral votes and when a candidate wins a state, he/she gets their electoral votes.
Look, whether it was part of the original intent or not, one of the greatest benefits of the Electoral College is that is forces the candidates to visit the ENTIRE country during his/her campaign. The United States is diverse land mass with a third of a billion inhabitants and captivates literally a dozen or more identifiable cultures. It also respects the individuality of each state and respects their right to protect their own identity. Candidates aren't trying to win the most votes. They are trying to win the most STATES. And states have weighted values based on population. Therefore California, New York, Florida and Texas will continue to have a larger say for years to come.
If winning the popular vote were all it took to win the election, the candidate could spend all of his or her time and money in only a select few heavily populated states, which in turn disregards the voices and opinions of a large number of other voters scattered across the remaining majority of the U.S land mass. In fact if you do the math, this doesn't let EITHER concept off the hook entirely because electoral or popular vote alike, if you ONLY win the 11 most populated states (see table 1 below), you'll hit the magic number of 270 electoral votes to successfully win the election while snubbing 39 of 50 states. You want to talk about “disenfranchisement”? You don’t get much more disenfranchised than that. One could argue the same in terms of winning those states simply in terms of popular vote. This begs the questions "Should we devise a better solution still?"
And in response to those that want to switch to the "popular vote only" method, that is an extreme measure which would require us to rip up the Constitution as it exists right now, eliminate the borders between all 50 states and convert us us one big fat country with NO states. A popular vote election process is a part of a "Direct Democracy", which can work for a single country where there are no independent states and the people directly select their leaders. But a "Direct Democracy" does not work in a union of sovereign states like ours. In order to allow Californians to remain Californians while Texans can be Texans, we structured ourselves in a version of Democracy called a "Representative Republic" or a "Psephocracy", which is based on a Constitution and elected groups of people to represent the communities across the entire country. Here, since the president is selected to represent the union of states, he or she is selected by the states themselves. The states subsequently have their own independent voting laws as they deem fit to best represent their residents. So if you want to take up issue with this system, don't talk to the federal government because they have no authority on the matter. Talk to your state legislature. And no, you can't press the state electors to jump ship and select the a candidate other than the one that one their state. Most state constitutions prohibit this and the few that don't won't provide enough electoral votes to push Mrs. Clinton over the top. And even if it were, it would have to get through the Republican congress. Yeah that'll happen.
So ultimately, the president is campaigning to win states, not votes. And states have a point value based on their population. This concept is so mathematically sound that we even accept it in sports. In the NBA, the NHL and in Major League Baseball, you win a championship by winning games in a best-of-seven series, not by scoring the most points. And yes, this does mathematically allow for the possibility that the team with fewer total points actually loses the championship. In fact, the 1960 World Series saw the New York Yankees score twice the total runs as the Pittsburgh Pirates scored. And despite the Yankees having three blow-out victories, Pittsburgh won 4 squeakers and took the 4 out of 7 games needed to earn the title.
Sticking with the baseball analogy for a moment longer, let me throw this final curve ball before my arm gives out. For the sake of simplicity, let's say our country is only made of only three states. In a Direct Democracy election with two candidates "Smith" and "Jones", and where each state has exactly 1 million registered voters (of which miraculously 100% of them turn out to vote), you can see Smith taking two out of 3 states but Jones wins the election by a mere 60,000 votes (see table 2 below). In this scenario, one state gets to impose its will on the other two. Does that make sense to you?
Look, whether it was part of the original intent or not, one of the greatest benefits of the Electoral College is that is forces the candidates to visit the ENTIRE country during his/her campaign. The United States is diverse land mass with a third of a billion inhabitants and captivates literally a dozen or more identifiable cultures. It also respects the individuality of each state and respects their right to protect their own identity. Candidates aren't trying to win the most votes. They are trying to win the most STATES. And states have weighted values based on population. Therefore California, New York, Florida and Texas will continue to have a larger say for years to come.
If winning the popular vote were all it took to win the election, the candidate could spend all of his or her time and money in only a select few heavily populated states, which in turn disregards the voices and opinions of a large number of other voters scattered across the remaining majority of the U.S land mass. In fact if you do the math, this doesn't let EITHER concept off the hook entirely because electoral or popular vote alike, if you ONLY win the 11 most populated states (see table 1 below), you'll hit the magic number of 270 electoral votes to successfully win the election while snubbing 39 of 50 states. You want to talk about “disenfranchisement”? You don’t get much more disenfranchised than that. One could argue the same in terms of winning those states simply in terms of popular vote. This begs the questions "Should we devise a better solution still?"
 |
| Table 1 Data source: www.270towin.com |
And in response to those that want to switch to the "popular vote only" method, that is an extreme measure which would require us to rip up the Constitution as it exists right now, eliminate the borders between all 50 states and convert us us one big fat country with NO states. A popular vote election process is a part of a "Direct Democracy", which can work for a single country where there are no independent states and the people directly select their leaders. But a "Direct Democracy" does not work in a union of sovereign states like ours. In order to allow Californians to remain Californians while Texans can be Texans, we structured ourselves in a version of Democracy called a "Representative Republic" or a "Psephocracy", which is based on a Constitution and elected groups of people to represent the communities across the entire country. Here, since the president is selected to represent the union of states, he or she is selected by the states themselves. The states subsequently have their own independent voting laws as they deem fit to best represent their residents. So if you want to take up issue with this system, don't talk to the federal government because they have no authority on the matter. Talk to your state legislature. And no, you can't press the state electors to jump ship and select the a candidate other than the one that one their state. Most state constitutions prohibit this and the few that don't won't provide enough electoral votes to push Mrs. Clinton over the top. And even if it were, it would have to get through the Republican congress. Yeah that'll happen.
So ultimately, the president is campaigning to win states, not votes. And states have a point value based on their population. This concept is so mathematically sound that we even accept it in sports. In the NBA, the NHL and in Major League Baseball, you win a championship by winning games in a best-of-seven series, not by scoring the most points. And yes, this does mathematically allow for the possibility that the team with fewer total points actually loses the championship. In fact, the 1960 World Series saw the New York Yankees score twice the total runs as the Pittsburgh Pirates scored. And despite the Yankees having three blow-out victories, Pittsburgh won 4 squeakers and took the 4 out of 7 games needed to earn the title.
Sticking with the baseball analogy for a moment longer, let me throw this final curve ball before my arm gives out. For the sake of simplicity, let's say our country is only made of only three states. In a Direct Democracy election with two candidates "Smith" and "Jones", and where each state has exactly 1 million registered voters (of which miraculously 100% of them turn out to vote), you can see Smith taking two out of 3 states but Jones wins the election by a mere 60,000 votes (see table 2 below). In this scenario, one state gets to impose its will on the other two. Does that make sense to you?
Democrats fare just fine in elections when they understand the rules of engagement. President Obama spend significant time and money in rural America connecting with and gathering supporters there. Hillary Clinton stood back and called them "deplorable" while assuming she was entitled to a victory. She could not have been a more overly confident candidate.
Therefore I am open to any suggestions that can improve our current system while still respecting the independence of our 50 states. Everyone’s voice
should be heard. Not just the ones that agree with you (or me).
No comments:
Post a Comment