Debating the Electoral College, again
George Will has an intriguing column regarding the federal electoral system. One point that I tend to agree with his stance on minor parties: while our current system strongly favors dominance by two parties, this isn’t necessarily a bad thing since, in practice, a proliferation of parties results in numerous insular groups that find it difficult to compromise and govern. Everyone should have the chance to be heard, but there is merit in ignoring some of those voices.
However, the thrust of the article was about the merits of the Electoral College vs. direct popular vote and how he feels the movement in Colorado to split its Electoral votes based on the popular vote is a bad idea. Will makes fine points that the Electoral College forces a candidate to have solid support in many regions in order to win and that a bonus side-effect is that voting disputes are localized. I’ll concede those points, and I can even handle that the cumbersome, state-by-state approach that is required now does have some benefits that prevent a few small, heavily populated regions from dominating presidential elections. (Note, however, that the usual cry that the E.C. keeps small states ‘in play’ doesn’t hold up to scrutiny; as Steve Chapman points out in this recent column, not only are small states still often bypassed but even big ones, like Illinois, California, and Texas, can be ‘out of play’ due to perceived strong tilts towards one or the other party.)
What I don’t understand, however, is Will’s angst that Colorado’s proposed system (similar to those already in place in Maine and Nebraska) would utterly destroy the careful balance the Framers intended. Had the proposal been used in 2000, Colorado’s votes would have been 5-3 in favor of Bush instead of the 8-0 he actually received. Will implies that such a move would eliminate the definiteness that results from one candidate being elected from each state. That’s absurd—the winner of the state’s popular vote still wins the state in either case, the only thing that changes is the weight assigned to it in comparison with other state’s votes. The need for a President to gain multi-state appeal still exists, but the possibility of a candidate winning despite losing the national popular vote is much more remote. Maybe direct popular election isn’t necessarily the best thing, but thwarting the mandate of the electorate when there are only two (realistic) choices—or even to allow the possibility—is definitely a bad thing if you want the public to have faith in its government.
(Will also whines that national implementation of the Colorado-Maine-Nebraska vote-allocation system would have resulted in many more Presidential elections being thrown to the House of Representatives. He should read more history, as that was exactly the intent of many who crafted the Electoral College system in the first place! Besides, when the House does decide the President, voting is by state, so many of the benefits of the E.C. system still apply.)