![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I'm gonna blather about something that is bugging the heck out of me, and which I feel strongly about. It is inspired by the current howling over 'popular vote' in the Democratic party, but this post is not about that (though I'm sure by the time I'm done you'll be able to guess my feelings on it). I'm going to defend the Electoral College. Because, quite honestly, the movement towards dissing the EC and pitching the 'popular vote' in this country and the idea that it is somehow more fair, or more democratic scares the shit out of me. It's not. It sounds nice. On the surface it is a lovely argument that appeals to the egalitarian in all of us 'one man, one vote'. In reality it doesn't work that way, and the current flaws in the Electoral College are, in fact, directly related to priveleging, you guessed it, raw popular vote totals as a valid metric. Chances are you are staring at me right now going, "Has Eunice lost her damn mind?" I haven't. Long winded explanation behind the cut:
It seems counterintuitive, the idea that a popular vote could be undemocratic or unfair. I certainly felt that way right up to the election of 2000. It was in the wake of that disaster, and my distress over it that caused me to really start taking a hard look at how presidential elections are decided, and came to the strong conclusion that switching to a straight up popular vote count would be even more of a disaster. The problem with Florida was never that Al Gore was leading in the national popular vote. Recounting would not have changed that result either way. Let me repeat, recounting Florida would not have changed the national popular vote result in any way. The problem there was twofold. First, recounting Florida would have changed the delegate count, to accurately reflect that Gore had won the delegates allocated to Florida. Second, states awarding delegates on a winner take all, first past the post, raw popular vote totals system, was seriously affecting how much power any one individual had with their vote. The popular vote makes some voters count less, and other voters count more. It is, to put it mildly, unfair to everyone.
So how is that possible? Well, because we are a nation of individual states. And each state has it's own unique issues and problems which deserve representation and attention on a national level. What's good for California is not necessarily good for Alabama, and vice versa, and yet decisions made on a national level affect all states. Whether or not more people live in California than do Alabama does not change this. And yet, determining the winner of a presidential election by raw popular vote totals inherently advantages California over Alabama to an unfair and unreasonable degree. There is little to no incentive for a presidential candidate to even bother with the smaller states when running up the vote totals in a larger state would allow them to 'win'. There is little to no incentive for a President to bother taking into account smaller states when they have no need of their votes for re-election. The person living in a small state is inherently disadvantaged in a national popular vote. Their vote counts less, even though the decision being made is of equal interest to them. Under a delegate system there are still less delegates awarded to a less populous state, yes, but there is also a check on how much raw numbers can hose them. It is a balancing act, and raw popular vote totals tip us right off the damn wire. The goal here is not numbers it is proportional representation, making sure all voices get heard.
'But, Eunice! I live in a strongly blue (or red) state! The Electoral College means my vote doesn't count at all either!' You're right, under the current system by which we allocate delegates, it doesn't. Why? Because those delegates are awarded based on, you guessed it, raw popular vote totals. Only people living in so called 'swing' states have any power behind their vote, and even that is a shell game because the second the vote totals cross 50 percent plus one, everyone on the short side of the count loses all representation. Fair? Hardly. An accurate representation of the will of the people? Not even close. Now imagine, if you will, a system in which state delegates are awarded proportionally by the percentage of the vote won. You want every vote to count? For every person to have representation and true power behind their vote? There you have it. The republican voter in California, and the democrat in Alabama can now directly affect how their voices are heard on a national level without disadvantaging each other. In a national raw popular vote count, the California voter has ten times the power of the Alabama voter. In our current system of awarding delegates at the state level by raw popular vote counts, neither voter has any power at all. In a system of proportional allocation on both the national and state level, EVERYONE GETS HEARD. Let me repeat that, EVERYONE GETS HEARD. Everyone gets representation. Everyone's VOTES COUNT.
You wanna know why we have such shockingly low voter registration and voter turnout? Why people feel their votes don't count? Because their votes DON'T COUNT. Shuffling the system so that the way in which many people's votes still don't count isn't a solution, it's another problem.
In conclusion, mob rule is a crap way to run a government. Equal representation is not. Flame away.
(and before anyone points it out, yes, in terms of the current Democratic primary there are also issues in terms of the way in which delegates are awarded, and thus why I am not specifically addressing that, only the notion that raw popular vote totals are an accurate or fair way of determining representation, which they aren't)
It seems counterintuitive, the idea that a popular vote could be undemocratic or unfair. I certainly felt that way right up to the election of 2000. It was in the wake of that disaster, and my distress over it that caused me to really start taking a hard look at how presidential elections are decided, and came to the strong conclusion that switching to a straight up popular vote count would be even more of a disaster. The problem with Florida was never that Al Gore was leading in the national popular vote. Recounting would not have changed that result either way. Let me repeat, recounting Florida would not have changed the national popular vote result in any way. The problem there was twofold. First, recounting Florida would have changed the delegate count, to accurately reflect that Gore had won the delegates allocated to Florida. Second, states awarding delegates on a winner take all, first past the post, raw popular vote totals system, was seriously affecting how much power any one individual had with their vote. The popular vote makes some voters count less, and other voters count more. It is, to put it mildly, unfair to everyone.
So how is that possible? Well, because we are a nation of individual states. And each state has it's own unique issues and problems which deserve representation and attention on a national level. What's good for California is not necessarily good for Alabama, and vice versa, and yet decisions made on a national level affect all states. Whether or not more people live in California than do Alabama does not change this. And yet, determining the winner of a presidential election by raw popular vote totals inherently advantages California over Alabama to an unfair and unreasonable degree. There is little to no incentive for a presidential candidate to even bother with the smaller states when running up the vote totals in a larger state would allow them to 'win'. There is little to no incentive for a President to bother taking into account smaller states when they have no need of their votes for re-election. The person living in a small state is inherently disadvantaged in a national popular vote. Their vote counts less, even though the decision being made is of equal interest to them. Under a delegate system there are still less delegates awarded to a less populous state, yes, but there is also a check on how much raw numbers can hose them. It is a balancing act, and raw popular vote totals tip us right off the damn wire. The goal here is not numbers it is proportional representation, making sure all voices get heard.
'But, Eunice! I live in a strongly blue (or red) state! The Electoral College means my vote doesn't count at all either!' You're right, under the current system by which we allocate delegates, it doesn't. Why? Because those delegates are awarded based on, you guessed it, raw popular vote totals. Only people living in so called 'swing' states have any power behind their vote, and even that is a shell game because the second the vote totals cross 50 percent plus one, everyone on the short side of the count loses all representation. Fair? Hardly. An accurate representation of the will of the people? Not even close. Now imagine, if you will, a system in which state delegates are awarded proportionally by the percentage of the vote won. You want every vote to count? For every person to have representation and true power behind their vote? There you have it. The republican voter in California, and the democrat in Alabama can now directly affect how their voices are heard on a national level without disadvantaging each other. In a national raw popular vote count, the California voter has ten times the power of the Alabama voter. In our current system of awarding delegates at the state level by raw popular vote counts, neither voter has any power at all. In a system of proportional allocation on both the national and state level, EVERYONE GETS HEARD. Let me repeat that, EVERYONE GETS HEARD. Everyone gets representation. Everyone's VOTES COUNT.
You wanna know why we have such shockingly low voter registration and voter turnout? Why people feel their votes don't count? Because their votes DON'T COUNT. Shuffling the system so that the way in which many people's votes still don't count isn't a solution, it's another problem.
In conclusion, mob rule is a crap way to run a government. Equal representation is not. Flame away.
(and before anyone points it out, yes, in terms of the current Democratic primary there are also issues in terms of the way in which delegates are awarded, and thus why I am not specifically addressing that, only the notion that raw popular vote totals are an accurate or fair way of determining representation, which they aren't)