ProJo Takes A Stand
The ProJo today has an editorial opposing plans, such as National Popular Vote, to eliminate the Electoral College as a means of electing the president. The arguments put forth in the editorial have the dual virtues of being both unconvincing as argument and wrong as matters of fact. Pretty impressive! Let’s take them one at a time:
Similar to the U.S. Senate, it gives smaller states (such as Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Connecticut) disproportionate power (more electoral votes per capita than more populous states such as California and Texas). That makes it harder for big states to steamroll over smaller states’ interests.
Actually, this isn’t such a good thing. Disproportionate power to small states is sort of profoundly un-democratic. Should Wyoming really have the same influence as Texas? Should Rhode Island really have as much influence over federal policy as Michigan? (It’s not good argumentative technique to bring up the fact that institutions like the Senate and the Electoral College were created to protect the rights of slave-holding states, but I’m going to do it anyway.)
And, of course, not only is this argument bad, it’s also wrong. In what sense can Rhode Island be said to effectively exercise this “disproportionate power” in presidential elections? When was the last time any presidential candidate gave half a crap about Rhode Island’s four electoral votes?
It protects the rights of rural states, which could otherwise be a mere afterthought. The Founders believed that the values inculcated in rural America were an important part of the country’s fabric.
I’m sorry, exactly which rights of rural Americans are threatened by a popular vote? And, for the extra point, how often do rural voters play a major role in choosing the president?
It promotes the interests of ethnic minorities, such as blacks and Hispanics, since they can have a strong influence in state races that they would not have if presidential elections were purely national popularity contests.
“National popularity contests”! Wow, that is some impressive bullshit right there. I look forward to the ProJo’s denouncement of this fall’s Congressional election as a “state-wide popularity contest.” And explain again how a winner-take-all state-based Electoral College protects the interests of blacks and Hispanics? (It’s so cute when establishment media pretends to care about non-white people.)
It forces candidates to take on a more national perspective and thus usually more moderate policies than they otherwise would. Were a pure-popular-vote system installed, a candidate could theoretically roll up huge vote totals in one state or a small region, lose throughout the rest of the country, and still win.
I’m really having trouble following the logic here: a national popular vote would lead to less of a national perspective than state-by-state races in which only a handful of swing states matter? Not to mention that a candidate could “theoretically roll up huge vote totals in one state or a small region” and win under the Electoral College if that one state is California, or that region is the Northeast. A popular vote would make this less likely, since huge states like CA, TX, and MI wouldn’t allocate their votes to a candidate on a winner-take-all basis.
It makes it easier to limit the effect of corruption. If corrupt voting practices let a candidate roll up a huge majority in one place, the Electoral College would tend to wall off the effect to that one state.
Ha ha! Ha ha ha ha! Ha! No, seriously, that really is the dumbest thing I’ve read so far today.
The Electoral College is a pretty ridiculous system, and National Popular Vote deserves a shot.
Popularity: 4% [?]
I’m not opposed to exploring the possibility of a national popular vote, especially because I’m guessing that the electoral college system was actually designed largely because the framers didn’t have the technology and communications tools that we do to even make a national popular vote feasible. On the other hand, I do agree that there are some disadvantages to it. First, I don’t actually disagree with the notion of slightly disproportionate representation, at least not on principle. (Anyone who does needs to start advocating for China to get a LOT more clout at the United Nations.) Second, while the voter fraud argument above is ludicrous, breaking a national vote down into state-sized units does allow us to focus on problems in convenient chunks. For example, as much as the Florida recount sucked, the national vote was also so close that we might well have been in the same situation nationwide if the vote had been counted that way.
Devil’s advocate aside most of the ProJo’s arguments are questionable at best and completely asinine or nonsensical at worst. Yay local paper!