The Electoral College, in practice
Keeping in mind that the states are the bodies intended to elect the president, what would be the effect of abolishing the EC and going to direct election of the president? In the first place, it would (to use the term in vogue) "disenfranchise" the states, as political units, from having a voice in the selection of the president. Even more striking, though, is an examination of population numbers from the most recent census.
California is obviously the biggest electoral prize, with 55 electoral votes. As of July 1, 2003, the population of California was 35,484,453. This number is greater than that of twenty-one states and the District of Columbia, which had a combined population of 33,050,772.
Even taking the populations of Los Angeles and the San Francisco area, which combined was 11.5 million, is greater than the combined population of eleven states and the District of Columbia.
New York state has a population of 19,190,115, greater than the population of fifteen states and D.C. The five boroughs of New York City alone have a greater population than nine states and D.C.
What do these numbers mean? They explain how in a direct election, candidates would be able to focus their attention and energies on the urban population bases and the larger states, bypassing states such as Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, Wyoming, Delaware, Montana, Rhode Island, Hawaii, New Hampshire (of "first-in-the-nation-primary" fame), Maine, Idaho, Nebraska, West Virginia, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, Kansas, Arkansas, Mississippi, or Iowa. These states -- intended to be dual sovereigns in the federal union with the government in Washington -- may become insignificant in the selection of the president.
Before anyone comments that such a situation is no different than we have now, where candidates are never seen in "safe" states and spend all of their time campaigning in "swing" states, there is a key distinction -- under the current Electoral College system, even those states that see a candidate's plane only as it flies overhead still have an impact on the outcome.
Finally, keep in mind the intent of the Framers in not only creating the executive branch, but in establishing the framework of the government in the manner in which they did: to provide a federal system, where the states shared sovereignty with the federal government. This essential character has already been eroded by the Seventeenth Amendment; abolishing the Electoral College would go a long way toward destroying this federal system, and make the states mere political arms of an all-powerful central, national government.
Practically, it will be hard to amend the Constitution to do away with the Electoral College. Because three-fourths of the states would be necessary to ratify such an amendment, and because far more than one-quarter of the states would be detrimentally affected by such a change, I do not see it happening in the near future. But that will not stop editorialists, pundits, and politicians from making the case over the next few days and weeks. The Washington Post had an editorial in Monday's paper discussing the pros and cons of the Electoral College. That's only the beginning.
California is obviously the biggest electoral prize, with 55 electoral votes. As of July 1, 2003, the population of California was 35,484,453. This number is greater than that of twenty-one states and the District of Columbia, which had a combined population of 33,050,772.
Even taking the populations of Los Angeles and the San Francisco area, which combined was 11.5 million, is greater than the combined population of eleven states and the District of Columbia.
New York state has a population of 19,190,115, greater than the population of fifteen states and D.C. The five boroughs of New York City alone have a greater population than nine states and D.C.
What do these numbers mean? They explain how in a direct election, candidates would be able to focus their attention and energies on the urban population bases and the larger states, bypassing states such as Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, Wyoming, Delaware, Montana, Rhode Island, Hawaii, New Hampshire (of "first-in-the-nation-primary" fame), Maine, Idaho, Nebraska, West Virginia, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, Kansas, Arkansas, Mississippi, or Iowa. These states -- intended to be dual sovereigns in the federal union with the government in Washington -- may become insignificant in the selection of the president.
Before anyone comments that such a situation is no different than we have now, where candidates are never seen in "safe" states and spend all of their time campaigning in "swing" states, there is a key distinction -- under the current Electoral College system, even those states that see a candidate's plane only as it flies overhead still have an impact on the outcome.
Finally, keep in mind the intent of the Framers in not only creating the executive branch, but in establishing the framework of the government in the manner in which they did: to provide a federal system, where the states shared sovereignty with the federal government. This essential character has already been eroded by the Seventeenth Amendment; abolishing the Electoral College would go a long way toward destroying this federal system, and make the states mere political arms of an all-powerful central, national government.
Practically, it will be hard to amend the Constitution to do away with the Electoral College. Because three-fourths of the states would be necessary to ratify such an amendment, and because far more than one-quarter of the states would be detrimentally affected by such a change, I do not see it happening in the near future. But that will not stop editorialists, pundits, and politicians from making the case over the next few days and weeks. The Washington Post had an editorial in Monday's paper discussing the pros and cons of the Electoral College. That's only the beginning.
posted by Hal | 1:35 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home