October 27, 2004
SMART GUYS, THOSE FOUNDERS:
The Electoral College Does It Better: Forcing candidates to broaden their base reduces political extremism. (Benjamin Zycher, October 27, 2004, LA Times)
[T]he electoral college offers important benefits.Once a candidate determines that he will be able to win a plurality in a state, thus getting all the electoral college votes, there is no point in campaigning further in that state. The candidate is then driven (by the pressure of the market, so to speak) to develop plurality support in additional states. Thus are candidates forced to broaden their geographic bases; those whose support is heavily regionalized are penalized implicitly.
This was particularly important in 2000: Al Gore piled up huge majorities on the West Coast and in the Northeast (hence his victory in the popular vote), but was not strong in the rest of the country (and so lost the electoral vote).
Because the plurality winner in a state gets all of that state's electoral votes, third and fourth parties have little hope of winning important numbers of electoral college votes (although they can deny a plurality to a candidate).
This means that the electoral college promotes the two-party system at the state level. The two-party system offers the important long-term benefit of forcing candidates and platforms toward the middle of the political spectrum, thus increasing consensus and compromise and reducing political strife.
A direct popular election under a plurality rule would tend to yield candidacies (and parties) with strong regional and ideological loyalties, with a goal of simply piling up more raw votes than anyone else. A runoff system would give disproportionate bargaining power to regional and ideological fringes. A system of allocating electoral college votes in proportion to the popular vote (now proposed for Colorado) would induce candidates to shift their efforts and resources to uncompetitive states, where there are large numbers of electoral college votes to be had.
Were you aware that they're still counting votes in Australia trying to determine whether John Howard controls the Senate outright or has to rely on a party with one Senator to do so? Posted by Orrin Judd at October 27, 2004 9:05 AM
Although I just wrote in another post that I stopped listening to NPR because of the election, I did catch a bit of Fresh Air while I was going to the gorcery store yesterday.
As you may or may not know, Fresh Air is from WHYY in Philly. The host, Terry Gross, had two editors of the Philadelphia Enquirer on and they were talking about the upcoming election. They were both Kerry supporters (I know, rather astonishing) and they were asked about allegations of vote fraud and another Florida like litigation situation. One of the editors thanked God that the Florida litigation didn't happen in Pennsylvania because Philly is absolutely terrible and the corruption is bad. He mentioned that there are viting booths in people's living rooms and these living rooms are owned by Democratic precinct captains. The response from Terry Gross and the other guy was laughter. Seconds earlier and later they were talking about those evil Republicans suppressing the voting in Florida (as if that were the gospel truth). Bottom line, actual Democratic cheating and voter fraud is ok only if you are a Democrat. The whole thing was typical and predictable but nonetheless troubling.
I used to live outside of Philly in West Chester, PA. I believe everything corrupt and bad about Philly politics.
Posted by: pchuck at October 27, 2004 9:59 AMIsn't Gov. Ed Rendell from Philly originally?
Yes. The current mayor of Philly is John Street and he is a real crook.
BTW, Rendell's wife is a Federal Disrict Court Judge in Philly.
The Founders were smart guys, but given what they thought the Electoral College would be doing, I chalk its continued importance up to more Bismarkian forces.
Posted by: David Cohen at October 27, 2004 12:09 PMAnd here in San Francisco, we just went to an Australian ballot system for local elections. Not that we'd mastered the earlier, simpler system.
David: I understand every word in your sentence, but I have no idea what the sentence means.
Posted by: PapayaSF at October 27, 2004 12:26 PMI read a similar analysis of the Electoral College system in Discovery sometime around the 1996 elections. Is this Zycher the same guy that did that article or has some connection to it?
Posted by: Ken at October 27, 2004 1:08 PMAs pchuck alluded to, another advantage of the Electoral System is that it compartmentalizes corruption. A close popular vote election would require a nation wide recount, which would be a disaster.
Posted by: jd watson at October 27, 2004 1:18 PMSmall factual quibble, Howard controls 39 seats giving him a Senate majority.(www.electionworld.org)
The Electoral College forces the campaign to go from state to state. Do you seriously think any candidate would go to Green Bay or Spokane if there were no electoral college? They'd stay in the major cities and with the fat cats even more than they do.
Posted by: Bart at October 27, 2004 2:32 PMBart:
Not yet, and how he might proves the point:
Historic Senate victory for PM
By Tim Colebatch
Canberra
October 28, 2004
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/10/27/1098667835621.html?oneclick=true
The Coalition is poised to claim a historic Senate majority this morning by taking the final two seats in Queensland.
In a final twist to a drawn-out vote count, the preferences of 29,043 Fishing Party voters could clinch for the Coalition the most powerful parliamentary position of any federal government in more than two decades.
Electoral officials will flick a switch at 11am to make their computer distribute millions of Queensland Senate preferences. A job that used to take weeks will be over in an hour, almost certainly resulting in a landmark shift of power to the Howard Government.
A late surge of votes for former One Nation leader Pauline Hanson could mean she will fight out the final seat with National Party candidate Barnaby Joyce and the Greens' Drew Hutton.
But if so, the preferences of Fishing Party voters will become the key factor that delivers the Government the final seat.
Posted by: oj at October 27, 2004 3:31 PMGod has a special providence for drunkards, fools, and the United States. Otto von Bismarck.
Although the Electoral College seems like it must have been designed for all the uses we put it to today, in fact the Founders had entirely different expectations. Lucky, huh?
Posted by: David Cohen at October 27, 2004 3:37 PM