Small states are currently losing…so why keep a system that isn’t working?
June 23rd, 2008
Outspoken Ann
In William March’s article, Larry Sabato, a professor at the University of Virginia defends the Electoral College. Although Sabato believes in a necessary reform for the Electoral College, he does not want it eliminated, as Sen. Nelson (D-Fl) proposed last week in Senate Joint Resolution 39.
Sabato argues that the Electoral College has its advantages, such as bringing attention to small states that would otherwise get ignored. As FairVote’s Presidential Inequality Report reveals however, in 2004, 11 of the 18 smallest states received no presidential candidate visits, nor TV advertisements during peak campaigning season. The Electoral College does not guarantee that small states get campaign attention as candidates vie for their electoral votes. On the contrary, 12 of the 13 smallest states in the nation (with New Hampshire as the exception) have been non-competitive safe red or safe blue states in the last five elections. As a result, candidates have no reason to campaign there, and these states are ignored during the campaign process. This lack of campaign attention clearly shows that the Electoral College is not working to include small states in the presidential election.
Sabato also claims that the Electoral College eliminates the need for the elusive “nation-wide” recount. Looking at the facts can easily calm the fear that many have for a large recount. If the National Popular Voting Plan is enacted, more people are likely to show up to vote due to the fact that every vote will be equal and needed for a candidate to win. Because more votes will be counted on Election Day, there is the likely possibility that there will be a larger disparity between the winning and losing candidate. FairVote’s Research Report “A Survey and Analysis of Statewide Election Recounts. 1980-2006” indicates that if a recount were to occur, the chances of an overturn election are one in every 16,000 years of presidential elections. Even so, in a race where the popular vote is essentially a tie, why should the recount be contained to a small region when the race is nationally close? The National Popular Vote allows for the whole country to make each vote count equally, and when every vote counts, every vote needs to be counted fairly.
Americans should be looking at a way to include the whole country in the Democratic process of electing a president, not worrying about keeping a system that clearly isn’t working.
Other posts by Outspoken Ann
- Massachusetts House Passes National Popular Vote Bill - July 10th, 2008
- Underestimating the States; an Unfair Argument - June 26th, 2008
- Small states are currently losing…so why keep a system that isn’t working? - June 23rd, 2008
June 23rd, 2008 at 3:21 pm
The new documentary, “Election Day,” focuses on the current state of the polls in America and may be of interest to Fair Vote. It follows an eclectic group of voters over one day, namely Election Day 2004, from the early morning until well after midnight. Capturing people from all walks of life, including an ex-felon voting for the first time at age 50 and a factory worker debating gay marriage with his co-workers, the film presents a glimpse of the real life stories that lie underneath the complex electoral process.
The documentary will air at 10pm on Tuesday, July 1st, 2008 on PBS’s P.O.V. series (check local listings http://www.pbs.org/pov/tvschedule.php).
See the trailer and learn more at http://electiondaythemovie.com/
June 23rd, 2008 at 7:32 pm
I’m wondering if FairVote or other NPV activists can write a response to Kimberling’s “Pro’s and Con’s of the Electoral College System”.
http://allaboutvoting.com/2008/03/23/the-case-for-the-electoral-college/
In particular one argument FOR the electoral college that I find difficult to rebut is that it “contributes to the cohesiveness of the country by requiring a distribution of popular support to be elected president”.
(I am a NPV supported but have large reservations about the interstate compact approach)
June 26th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Outspoken Ann, you really took it Sabato. I know Oregon gets ignored during campaign season, so it doesn’t seem like this system is working for us.
Keep up the good work!
June 26th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
It’s hard to evaluate an argument that isn’t itself clear. Maybe that’s why you struggle to rebut it.
Another way to phrase that ‘for’ argument might be:
“The Electoral College dampens sectional conflict over the presidency by requiring the winner to have pluralities in many states, not just a nationwide plurality.”
But what exactly does that mean?
Does it mean one “faction” (i.e. urban voters) cannot dominate the presidency under the electoral college? That assumes there are enough voters sharing preferences over outcomes to account for a constant plurality. Yet preferences are not that stable, nor are political geographies so totally homogeneous.
Does it mean the electoral college, by requiring support from numerous distant states, more often results in a Condorcet (i.e. least offensive) winner? That assumes voters in different states have significantly different preferences over outcomes. Are the states we live in really that determinative of our preferences?
One could go on.
If our political geographies aren’t as homogeneous as the argument may assume, or if the states we call home aren’t as determinative of preferences as the argument may assume, a direct presidential election might induce just as much national stability as an electoral college. That is, it might require equally broad coalitions to win the presidency under either arrangement.
But it is greatly underspecified to say that ‘the electoral college causes national stability.’ Therefore it’s difficult to assess the claim rigorously.