Scratch Ticket Bliss: Electing To End The Electoral College

[This piece is related to SES: Stolen Election Syndrome]

You have perhaps already heard the news that various (American) states are intending to up-end the electoral college by compacting together to "give their electoral votes to the candidate that wins the [overall] popular vote." If the compact can gain enough member states to garner the 270 electoral votes required to win a presidential election, then not all states will need to agree to the procedural change: several states can control a national election. Needless to say, the National Popular Vote proposal, as it is called, has bi-partisan support, and California is strongly behind it. Even the Los Angeles Times editorialized about the beauty of the proposal, writing "…we say the United States is ready for real democracy."

But the real democracy the California editorialists dream of is the tyranny of states over the federal government. To better understand my point, I offer the following comments I posted to a question by "Whattheheck", who wondered if there remained any defense of the electoral college (the question was posted at "In These Times" in the comments section):

Dear Whattheheck,

Yes, I do believe there is a defense of the electoral college, and it is this:

Please, just imagine for one second, that the Mormons in Utah go on a reproduction spree (I am not dissing Mormons here). Meanwhile, in major metropolitan areas around the country, a weird disease smites the population. Suddenly, in less than one generation, the largest single, and single-minded, voting bloc lives in Salt Lake City and its surrounding towns. Suddenly, one place and one place only, dictates national elections by having the largest single vote, dominating popular elections for decades.

Or, think of it this way. Imagine that the Ohio population burgeons to 600,000,000 people, all of whom are Republicans. Do you think anyone would ever campaign in New Hampshire again? The point is that there is to be a distinction between state and federal power. State power must not ever usurp or transcend federal power re: a federal policy or function. But, abandoning the electoral college may indeed lead to one state acting as the dictator of federal office.

Killing the electoral college is anti-democratic. In one very real sense, the electoral college is an affirmative action protecting smaller voting populations. And it makes candidates more sentient of the broad opinions that compose American ideologies; dismantling the electoral college will reduce candidates’ interest to the one major voting bloc that can give them the popular vote.

The electoral college may be the most ingenious thing ever created by our forbears, eclipsing, if that were possible, the very Constitution itself.

Peace,

BG

It is interesting to note that the LA Times supports a plan they refer to as a "scheme," and that the "ingenious scheme" is the brainchild of Stanford professor John R. Koza, who, again according to the LA Times, also invented the "scatch-off lottery" ticket (according to Mr. Koza's homepage, he is the co-inventor of that ditty). That Mr. Koza is responsible for fueling the addictions of so many American gamblers goes unnoticed; as does the fact that supporting the National Popular Vote proposal, while not yet approaching an addiction, is quite surely a gamble. I am one of the many, I hope, that find no delight in either of Mr. Koza's inventions.

I am interested to read what Contratimes readers think about such matters.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Technorati tags: Electoral College, National Popular Vote, National Popular Vote Proposal, John R. Koza, affirmative action