Is the Electoral College Obsolete?
Posted: Thu Jun 24, 2010 11:43 am
The National Popular Vote Corporation seems to think it's time for something better.
When you concentrate such influence by population, you can end up with decidedly skewed effects - and severely unanticipated consequences. I could see, from this, a point where a LOT of states end up tired of having no say in Washington and decide to cut themselves off from a political oligarchy which doesn't address their needs. (Hmmm. Arizona and border control come to mind there, where the government won't enforce the laws already on the books.)
Our current system has flaws, to be sure - but I think the benefits of the electoral college outweighs the flaws. It gives every state a stake in the game, instead of just a few, and makes it a bit harder to do the 'one man, one vote, one time' style of elections that seem prevalent in 3rd world governments when you get a charismatic figurehead. I am reluctant to scrap what works for something that seems pretty easy to skew.
This just seems like an unneeded complication, which will not improve the output.
I can see the point of electing the President by a popular vote - but I don't agree with it. This idea effectively concentrates the power to elect a President to the East and West coasts. Flyover country might as well not exist. And Wyoming? Pfft. There's not enough people to matter, and sheep & cows don't vote.Under the U.S. Constitution, the states have exclusive and plenary (complete) power to allocate their electoral votes, and may change their state laws concerning the awarding of their electoral votes at any time. Under the National Popular Vote bill, all of the state's electoral votes would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538).
When you concentrate such influence by population, you can end up with decidedly skewed effects - and severely unanticipated consequences. I could see, from this, a point where a LOT of states end up tired of having no say in Washington and decide to cut themselves off from a political oligarchy which doesn't address their needs. (Hmmm. Arizona and border control come to mind there, where the government won't enforce the laws already on the books.)
Our current system has flaws, to be sure - but I think the benefits of the electoral college outweighs the flaws. It gives every state a stake in the game, instead of just a few, and makes it a bit harder to do the 'one man, one vote, one time' style of elections that seem prevalent in 3rd world governments when you get a charismatic figurehead. I am reluctant to scrap what works for something that seems pretty easy to skew.
This just seems like an unneeded complication, which will not improve the output.