Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dedeppm
I think that breaking up the electoral college would encourage candidates for the presidency to address national issues over local issues when making campaign promises. I mean, living in Ohio, it was great being fawned over and sucked up to by both parties in the last election, but Kerry and Bush weren't running for governor of Ohio- they were running for a position of national leadership.
It's almost like the people living in states that are solidly "red" or "blue" are punished for their loyalty to one party because they (and many of the issues they may care about) are taken for granted by one party and written off by the other.
The last problem is merely the principle on which the Electoral College was founded. I believe that Americans *are* responsible enough as citizens to choose their destiny without some sort of aristocratic check on our decisionmaking (although the EC has only voted out of sync with the people once, and that was during Reconstruction- still, it's the principle of the thing 
my .02 |
Regarding the 1876 election, Tilden not only won the popular vote, but should have won the electoral vote as well. The election was basically stolen by Republican-dominated election commissions in Florida, South Carolina and Louisiana, who disqualified enough Democratic votes to give their states to Hayes. And even without the Electoral College, corrupt politicians can play around with the votes when certifying elections, as appears to have occurred in the Washington State 2004 gubernatorial election.
In 2000, the EC was "out of sync with the people". Unless you buy into Democratic conspiracy theories, Bush did win Florida, meaning he legitimately won the electoral vote while "losing" the popular vote. But it was far starker in 1888, where Cleveland "won" the popular vote 49% to 48% but lost the electoral vote 233 to 168. In 1824, the winner of a plurality of the popular vote (Jackson) lost the election, but he had also won the electoral vote. There, House politics "stole" Jackson's victory, not the Electoral College system.
In 53 contested elections since 1796, there have only been 4 where there was a dispute, and, as noted above, in only two was it a case of the Electoral College thwarting the popular will (1888 and 2000) and one where corrupt politicians misused the Electoral College to thwart the popular will (1876). Compared to the record in state elections and in various foreign democracies, that is an enviable track record.
Don't take me for granted
Regarding punishment for loyalty, the party which takes a state for granted suffers in the long run. In the post-World War Two era,
no state has voted for the same party in every election.
A few are reliably red - Alaska, Indiana, Kansas, Nebraska and the two Dakotas went Dem only in '64; Idaho, Utah, Virginia and Wyoming only in '48 and '64.
The bluest of blue states are less firm. Massachusetts voted for Ike twice and Reagan twice. Hawaii and Rhode Island voted for Ike twice, Nixon in '72 and Reagan in '84. Minnesota voted for Ike twice and Nixon in '72.
In the long run, the others are in play.
Arizona is an example: Arizona went for Truman in '48 but became reliably Republican thereafter. It went for favorite son Goldwater in LBJ's '64 landslide. But in 1992, Bush only won Arizona by 2%. In 1996, Clinton won Arizona.
Minnesota is another. Except for Nixon's '72 landslide, Minnesota has been a blue state since 1960 and was the only state carried by Mondale in '84. But Gore barely carried Minnesota (48% to 46%). Kerry, too (51% to 48%).
How about Howard Dean's Vermont? Democrat in the last four elections straight and home of the only avowed Socialist in Congress. But before 1992, Vermont went Democrat once, in 1964. Not once in the post-war era. Once, ever. The last time the Democrats won in Vermont was 1820, and then they were the Democratic-Republican Party, forerunner to both of today's main parties. Vermont and Maine were the only states to go against FDR in all of his victories.
Maine is another traditional GOP stronghold. Until 1992, Maine went Republican in every election since the GOP's founding in 1856 except 1912, 1964 and 1968. Since 1992, though, Maine has moved into the Democrat's column. It was one of the few states where Kerry did better than Gore.
In a number of states that were loyal Democrats for many recent elections, the trend has been in favor of the GOP. These include West Virginia, Iowa and Wisconsin. In other states that were loyal GOP bastions, the trend in recent elections has been toward the Democrats. These include California, Illinois, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine. New Mexico, Nevada and Colorado are all in play.
Just background
But all of this is just background. It indicates that the Electoral College system, with very few exceptions, works extremely well, and that states should not be taken for granted by the parties
But the main flaw is this statement: that "the principle on which the Electoral College was founded" was to be "some sort of aristocratic check on our decisionmaking." The Electoral College system is not designed to thwart the
popular majority, but to protect smaller states from larger ones. It gives smaller states somewhat disproportionate representation to their population, meaning that they (and their citizens) cannot be as easily disregarded in putting together an electoral majority.
You say candidates for the presidency should "address national issues over local issues." That is fine as far as it goes, and I agree, but who decides what the national agenda is? If parties only have to compete for a national popular majority, they will concentrate their efforts on the major urban areas where they can get more bang for the buck.
In a straight popular vote contest, the election would be focused on and decided in the BosWash corridor and the California coast, and a few other major urban areas. No one will fawn over Ohio or New Hampshire or Iowa or Wisconsin. You will have a situation like in France, where Paris dominates everywhere else, or Georgia, where all roads lead to Atlanta.