Rocky Mountain High
Maybe it's the thin mountain air, but the Rocky Mountain News couldn't be further off the mark in its editorial yesterday on the Electoral College.
The editorial takes aim at a proposal by an organization called FairVote to effectively nullify the Electoral College, so that presidents can be elected by a majority of voters.
I sympathize with the editorial's characterization of the scheme as a "constitutional end-run." But as I've said before, a kludge is better than no solution at all. And the Electoral College is a problem in definite need of a solution.
The editorial minimizes the harmful effect of the Electoral College on our political process, claiming that "the only reason to change the system is to cover cases when the popular vote and the Electoral College vote are different. Before 2000, that had happened only twice before, in 1876 and 1888."
 |
Samuel Jones Tilden |
In the first place, that this kind of thing happened once is one time too many. But three times? How many times does it take for us to learn our lesson?
Assuming you attended school some time after 1888, I would bet your teacher had one hell of a hard time explaining how Rutherford B. Hayes and Benjamin Harrison became president even though they won less votes than their opponents. That's because your teacher, like most Americans, was probably what the Rocky Mountain News calls a "majoritarian" — someone who actually believes that the majority rules.
Not in America.
But the Electoral College hasn't screwed skewed just three elections. In every single presidential election, candidates concentrate on the so-called battleground states, where the outcome is actually in question, and where the votes actually mean something. In 2004, Time magazine counted just 18 battleground states.
The editorial concludes with a flourish:
[W]e do have a fondness for the federal system. If the majoritarians eliminate the Electoral College, what will they go after next? The Senate? It has to be far more offensive to majoritarians than even the Electoral College.
It certainly is to this majoritarian. Dump it.
I, too, have a fondness for the federal system. But I have more of a fondness for the principle of one person, one vote.
Comments
...the only reason to change the system is to cover cases when the popular vote and the Electoral College vote are different.
As you point out, Abi, it's the fact that it takes states "out of play" in the electoral process that's the real problem. In that light, the above statement is ludicrous. Especially when one considers that the three largest states are three that are not in play CA, NY, and TX.
Posted by: Kvatch | April 2, 2006 10:13 PM
Just change the name to Rocky Mountain Stupid News. 'Majoritarian'?!!! How dumb a fucking word is that? Haven't heard a word that stupid since Arianna's 'repurposing'.
Posted by: Neil Shakespeare | April 3, 2006 02:37 PM
Well I am not a fan of the electoral college, I guess I am a beleiver in one person, one vote. period. done. No skewing, no screwing.
I know that these kinds of things sort of come up, then go away. But at some point- like immigration, social security, etc. action has to be taken if Americans want action.
Posted by: Elizabeth Branford (lily) | April 5, 2006 05:05 PM