There are few parts of our representative government that are as misunderstood as the Electoral College. When I was taught about this part of the process, I was told the Electoral College existed for two reasons. First, that there were too few people who understood issues back then, so you elected someone to go vote for you. Second, that communication and technology was not what it is, so a procedure for covering the miles needed to be adopted. These reasons are ludicrous when you get right down to it: this is the same era that turned out or founding fathers. Simply assuming that an ancestor is not as smart or capable as you is arrogant. Considering what they accomplished and the means they had it seems to me that as a whole they were more resourceful, more determined, more capable, and more impressive. Additionally, it can be presumed, whoever went to vote in the Electoral College, using whatever technology and transportation was available, could have simply brought the results of the state-wide election to the capitol.
We see a few states (Nevada, Maine, and soon Colorado I think) who have decided (or are deciding) that they should not have their electoral votes go “whole to one side or the other” but rather to split those votes based on the votes in their states. This is a watering down of the intent of the college, which I think is wrong (and I will explain it below) but it does not eliminate its effectiveness wholely.
So, why do I think the Electoral College is so important?
Our country is a whole nation. It is based on a diverse population, diverse politics, perspective, and industry. A great many of us know all too well the issues associated with life in a city. We know daily jobs, we know supermarkets, crime, police, sanitation, etc. A very few of us know any of the issues associated with farming. Or ranching. Or mining. Or providing this nation with wood. All we know is that the food ends up in the supermarket, is usually more expensive than we’d like, and someone else handles the details (including making sure that it meets certain standards). Most of these professions, crucial one might say, to the survival of our country, take up a great deal of space. That precludes the ability to set up a large city in those areas.
What this means is that the large cities are well represented in population, but they may not be well represented in essential professions. Who can claim we do not need food? Or wood? Or metal? Especially if you’re from the city?
The Electoral College gives a voice proportionate more to the true diversity of our nation than to the simple population of our nation. If only those issues that deal with the city were represented, the very support systems that allow those megalopolises to exist would collapse.
Additionally, the Electoral College performs another vital function: it inhibits the ability to brainwash concentrated populations so that pure numbers dictate your policies. We all understand market economics. Where there’s a market, there are people to buy things. Where there’s a bigger market, there are more people. A big city is full of people who are under the constant bombardment of today’s media – print, broadcast, or otherwise. Expression of ideas (right or wrong) there will simply have greater exposure. Manipulation of minds through misrepresented issues is therefore more feasible, and requires fewer resources or effort.
I know that it is purely politics when Senators (who themselves exist in a body designed to give voices disproportionate to population) claim they want to do away with the Electoral College. If the vote is split: popular goes one way, EC the other, partisans are going to be split based on how well that suited their hoped-for outcome. It is ironic that the so-called party of “diversity” is arguing against diversity in a body of the government that underscores diversity. I hope they never do away with this important institution. The fact is there are too many states who rely on it, and for the very good reasons I outlined above.
In the end it isn’t just about the number of voices, it’s about the diversity of our whole nation. Not just diversity in one neighborhood or one city or one state, but the whole nation. Just because you don’t do, or know how to do, or understand the issues revolving around a thing doesn’t mean that thing is unimportant. It could be the different between having a home filled with nice things (and food) and being killed by a neighbor because suddenly there are not enough resources to go around.
3 comments:
I will freely admit that I never thought about it that way. I don't entirely understand what you just said. I get the bit about the population in the city and that we don't understand their issues. I don't get how the Electoral College speaks up for them. You said that the EC gives them a voice instead of letting it all be decided by majority. Can you explain that a bit more?
-k
Ok. The "short version" is this:
A "majority" based on the number of people represents (obviously) the number of people. What I believe the Electoral College does is to create a "weighted majority" some voices end up with a louder say than others. To me this is important because while population centers (such as cities) will be very well represented even in a weighted majority, some of our most important functions in society necessarily come from more sparcely populated areas (such as farms, ranches, forests, etc.) Those important functions need a slightly louder voice because although they are essential to our survival, there are fewer people representing them. The way our EC works, they do not suddenly get an overwhelming advantage, but together those states that are more likely to represent the rural concerns (rural areas essentially making urban centers possible, for without the rural, urban would have no food) must be taken seriously.
Illustration: 90 people live in a city. 10 people live in individual villages. A candidate comes up for election who says the country's water, which is currently split 50-50 between the city and the farms, should be 90-10 because of population. The people in the city are tired of water conservation because they can't wash their cars, they feel guilty taking a bath, they need special-flush toilets, and their water/sewer bills are higher than they like. They believe this will allow them to wash cars, bathe, use bigger toilets, and lower their bills. The people on the farms realize that the reason they have more water is because they are irrigating crops - the very food that the city dwellers need to survive. If they have less water (they are also dealing with a drought and have all the same personal restrictions) they will not be able to grow enough food. In a vote based on population alone, almost HALF of the city people need to understand the farms well enough to make an informed vote. However, if you say every area has a minimum of 5 votes (and each villager lives far enough apart to qualify for that) suddenly the vote is 90-50. Only 21 city dwellers need to understand the importance of sacrificing some personal water in order to be able to eat.
The EC doesn't automatically give all the voice to the rural areas, but at least they will be better represented. Does that make it clearer?
Actually, you had me at hello. It dawned on me today that your point is that if it were only decided by popular vote and not by EC, then it would be purely a population game. And this way, the issues can be decided by the whole state as a whole casting a majority vote, and voting as a state. Does that make sense? This way, states decide as a whole. That way each individual voter decides. Since there are more individual voters in the big cities, and they have a skewed perspective of events, that isn't in the best interests of the country.
Post a Comment