Fantastic. This is an issue that needs to be addressed. I can sort of understand why no one wanted to discuss it in the immediate aftermath of Indecision 2000. But it's time for this relic to go. It's anti-democratic, and it could break down into chaos (for a humorous look at this not-so humorous possibility read Jeff Greenfield's novel The People's Choice?). If there's one topic that merits amending the constitution, it's this one. This is about the basic workings of the system of government, changing them in a way that strengthens our values, and prevents a situtation that could harm our democracy.
By the way, has there been any recent polling on the number of Americans who even know this is how we elect our presidents? I presume that this number is higher in the wake of 2000, but I'd bet that a substantial number of people still presume that the winner is determined on the basis of the popular vote.
Posted by armand at August 29, 2004 11:27 AM | TrackBack | Posted to Politicsit's not that i strongly support the electoral college, or that i don't grant the validity, regardless of the persuasiveness, of the editorial's basic premises . . . but it's the tacit premise, that this country should aspire to be a direct democracy, that's bothersome . . . again, not for its content, but for the fact that it's only obliquely acknowledged in a short final (and rather dismissive) paragraph.
i'm out of my depth in present company, i realize, and i fully expect to get flamed into oblivion, but it seems to me that -- lub it or leave it -- this is and remains a republic, and a convincing editorial against the electoral college needs to address issues of federalism rather than merely relying on the outrage of its liberal leadership at the 2000 outcome.
i too was outraged by the outcome in 2000, but not by the discrepancy between the popular vote nationwide and the electoral college's tally. rather, i was troubled by the specific goings-on that cast florida's electors into doubt, and the supreme court's (activist) usurpation in sweeping it all under the carpet.
Posted by: joshua at August 30, 2004 10:13 AM | PERMALINKSee to me that's one of main things that speaks in favor of a direct election and a prime example of what's wrong with the current system. The current system is terribly vague and can be worked to death by politicians and lawyers. It's relatively easy through court cases and ballot design to mess around with the outcome. With direct democracy it's much harder to "massage" or "steal" an outcome. Nation-wide the vote tallies aren't close, even in a super-close race like the last one. Gore outpolled Bush by something like half a million votes. And if there's not a majority in the College and the vote goes to Congress ... as a purely practical matter the College is a terrible mess.
But then to me the Senate is plenty if we want to have a Republic. I think the head of state and head of government should be chosen by the people.
Posted by: Armand at August 30, 2004 10:48 AM | PERMALINK