Deformed ReformThe cure for the Electoral College that is worse than what ails us.

Remarks from the Fray:

It's understandable, but wrong, to lay the blame for "swing states" on the Electoral College system; the possibility of a swing state is just as real in any proposed alternative which tries to mimic a direct national vote, because concentrated regional blocs of voters can easily be numerous enough to swing such an election. The only difference is that the "swing state" has to have a large population, or has to become a "swing region" made up of several states.

It's also understandable -- but also wrong -- to dismiss the Electoral College, and the winner-take-all system most states use to apportion their electoral votes, as flawed. Perhaps the best explanation of why that's wrong is an analogy coined by mathematician Alan Natapoff. Think of another quintessentially American institution: baseball. The champion of each major-league season is decided, ultimately, by the World Series, a best-of-seven contest.

We understand on a pretty fundamental level that this is a pretty good way to pick a winner: by requiring the eventual champion to perform consistently well over multiple games, we're doing away with flukes introduced by isolated, one-sided blowouts. The analogy to various direct-vote emulation schemes would be a series which always goes seven games, and where the team with the most total runs over those games wins. But this opens the door to, say, a "champion" who had a 7-0 victory in Game 1, followed by six straight 1-0 losses. Any baseball fan would immediately say that such a team is no "champion", and that the "losers" who won six out of seven games should be the ones getting the ticker-tape parade.

The Electoral College imposes a similar requirement of consistency on a potential President: by essentially creating many separate Presidential elections, the College requires the eventual winner perform well across a broader spectrum. If not for this, we wouldn't be able to talk about electing the "President of the United States" with a straight face; most of the time, a few populous regions would elect a President, and the rest of us would be along for the ride. We'd have the "President of California, New York and Florida", who'd incidentally end up as chief executive of all forty-seven other states. And that would be nothing short of disastrous: the only response possible from the more sparsely-populated states would be to band together into a massive voting bloc, and we'd end up with an even more polarized electorate.

What's worse, it would largely be polarized along geographic lines: the large population centers are mostly coastal, while the sparser areas lie in the nation's interior. The last time we were divided that sharply along a roughly geographic boundary, we fought a four-year civil war and got a lasting legacy of regional enmity thrown into the bargain. Keep the Electoral College, on the other hand, and the larger population centers lose some of their clout, the less-populated states gain a bit of power and a successful candidate is placed in a situation of needing to appeal to both.

An analogy can be drawn to the structure of the Federal legislative branch: the bicameral Congress, with representation apportioned equally to all states in one house and apportioned by population in the other, makes the same trade-off in a far more explicit fashion, and in doing so provides an effective check against tyranny by the majority. The Electoral College was not, so far as I'm aware, conceived with any such goal in mind, but nonetheless accomplishes much the same thing for the executive branch, ensuring -- for all its perceived faults and antiquated notions about representative democracy -- that a candidate for the Presidency cannot glide in on a single blowout any more than a team in the World Series can ride a single game's run tally through to the end.

--ubernostrum

(To reply, click here.)

Pure democracy has never been a desire of this country. Federalism is inherently undemocratic; one state can enshrine the death penalty even when the vast majority of the rest of the country rejects it. The Bill of Rights is also undemocratic, as it takes far more than a majority to undo the rights protected there. Thus, accusing something of being "undemocratic" is a weak epithet. We have long learned that democracy is a tonic best enjoyed in moderation.

--Sycamancy

(To reply, click here.)

If candidates actually were required to get the most popular votes we would see a substantially different campaign with emphasis on different issues, different commercials and different geographical coverage. Different color mud would be slung, different widows and orphans exploited.

If popular vote was the name of the game, Bush V. Gore would have been a completely different campaign in 2000. It is uncertain whether or not Gore would have won a popular vote that actually counted.

Today's system favors large and politically diverse states (Florida), small states (New Hampshire) and rural states (Nebraska) at the expense of about 8 large urban areas. A popular vote system overwhelmingly favors a few urban areas and disenfranchises virtually everyone else.

As for the Republican proposal, it's a pundit full-employment act as Kaus pointed out days ago. It's DOA, but a useful distraction for both sides.

--moodyguppy

(To reply, click here.)

(8/27)

• Stumped: Bring Back Bill Clinton
• Krauthammer: Maliki Votes for Obama
• Dionne: The Year the Youth Vote Arrives