Calls to abandon the Electoral
College are nothing new. After Al Gore won the popular vote in the 2000
Presidential election but lost the presidency due to the College, there were
many calls to do away with the system. In a cruel sign of foreshadowing, Hillary
Clinton herself spoke out against the system, and called for a system based
around the popular vote. She stated she believed that doing so is the most accurate
way for the will of the people to be represented.
Now, 16 years later,
Hillary Clinton has run for President, and she has lost. But she has lost only
in that she will not be America’s next President. If we agree that receiving the
most votes for President reflects the will of the people, than Hillary Clinton has
won that. It appears certain at this time that Hillary
Clinton won the popular vote despite losing in the Electoral College.
The reasons behind
removing the Electoral College have been explained at length over the years.
The focus here is not to say in some other way why we should do away with the
system. The focus is to say that we must, now more than ever, fight for why we
should do away from the system.
In 2000, there was plenty
of discussion and fighting concerning the subject. But, for what ever reason,
the change was never made. And therein lies the problem, because after that,
people became complacent. The idea that someone could win the electoral vote
but lose the popular vote was seen as a chance circumstance, one that had
happened only four times in United States history and only once in the modern
day. But now, because of the 16 year time span, many voters for whom this was their first time voting have had
this experience happen twice within their lifetimes. Now more than ever it is clear, the
Electoral College is a problem that must be talked about and fought over, lest we
fall into the same complacency we fell into 16 short years ago.
Your post is point. Vox.com posted a great article deconstructing how archaic the Electoral College has become.
ReplyDeleteHere is a link: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/7/12315574/electoral-college-explained-presidential-elections-2016
The aspect of it that I find most disheartening is the fact that "rough electors" can take the election into their own hands and completely upset the results of an election. We seriously need to take a hard look at the system. It's time for an update.
I just do not understand voting sometimes. Like Hilary won the popular votes in Massachusetts and Trump was behind her. but because of the electoral they get to vote and it is on them? I mean if voting has loop holes, well here it is. we vote to be override by the electoral votes. so is there even a point to vote anymore?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi,
DeleteI thought your post was interesting, but I am not sure if the Electoral College will be abolished anytime soon, though it would probably be a good idea.
I think part of the reason for this, and this is largely just an opinion of course, is that it follows the indirect way in which Americans experience and implement democracy.
I think the Framers were somewhat concerned about populist elections and, since people in those days knew little about candidates from other states, they were concerned that people would vote for the most prominent from their own state and therefore produce a plurality of possible presidential hopefuls. As a result of this and the decidedly unsavory nature with which the Framers held direct elections, and certainly other considerations, the Roman system of installing the most knowledgeable elector was implemented here.
This system sort of resembles the indirect nature of the American version of democracy itself, in which citizens elect those to governing positions in Congress so that these persons do their bidding in government. But, the citizens themselves do not operate the leavers of power, the elected do. And while Americans do in fact cast votes for the president, and the electors generally follow the popular vote, this system seems to embody the indirect nature of American democracy and contains a builtin protection against the perceived ignorance of the average people as well as a check on populism.
I believe this sentiment toward the electorate is still very much alive in ruling class circles.
Nevertheless, to add yet an even greater twist, though, Mrs. Clinton was the candidate largely accepted by what we might call the establishment in this country, while Trump is the untried, loose-cannon, anti-establishment candidate elected by the very body whose historical purpose has in part been to guard against just such elections.
IN any case, For now, until Americans reject any notions that limit their voice, such as term limits and rigid voting laws or leaving the important business of governance and understanding the complex issues we face to the elected after elections are over, the Electoral College is likely here to stay for the foreseeable future.
"the indirect nature of the American version of democracy itself"
DeleteThe word you are looking for is "republic".
ReplyDeleteWhen you say, "for what ever reason, the change was never made" I'm reminded of the quotation
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
I refer you to "The Electoral College and why it matters":
http://l.prageru.com/2fXaHVw
After watching it, you'll understand why two rural states (Iowa and New Hampshire) are gatekeepers for presidential politics.
Maybe it seems outdated because your country is so big and the contemporary status between states are quite different.
ReplyDeleteIf I were the voter, I would be disappointed and I would give up voting. Electoral college system seems decrease the value of every vote. People may think of their votes unimportant.
Population density and the needs of the urban versus the rural are interesting ways of considering this past election.
ReplyDeleteThinking about the pros and cons of the Electoral College and current state election system versus a straight national popular vote, you have to wonder what would happen with the attention given to rural America. The areas that provide important things like food to cities but wouldn't have a lot of votes to give to visiting candidates all at once.
Loopholes that allow for faithless electors are concerning, but calling for the end of the Electoral College without scrutinizing the fine print is a little anxiety inducing. Even after reading about it on the archive/federal .gov sites I still don't feel like I know enough.
You don't get chosen by your state party to be a potential Elector unless you have demonstrated for many many years that you will not be faithless.
Delete