PO: No Representation without Taxation
Observations on the Electoral College Debates
I find the arguments on the Electoral College amusing. Everyone seems to know:
-
Why they should have a disproportionate vote in the choice of President.
-
That someone who was president was a better president than someone who never was (but would have been had the system they are objecting to been in place).
-
That democracy is bad.
To those who feel is is right that they should have a disproportionate vote, then we should at least consider that correspondingly disproportionate taxation should be in order. Those who think it should be a federal system, with each state having equal say, should expect each state to bear and equal share of the burden of government. Alaskans – who have 50 times more representation, per person, in the Senate than Californians, should expect to bear 50 times more taxation per person. If the Federal government instigates conscription, Alaskans should expect to be 50 times more likely to be conscripted than Californians.
If you feel that your choice of President is better than the misguided decision of the people, why don't we skip pretending to give people a vote and go straight to the oracle. You should choose the President – and you will no doubt choose yourself – just as every dictator chooses himself as the rightful ruler.
The electoral college, as it operates today, takes the choice of the people, according to the popular vote, and adjusts it according to a factor determined by the randomness of the distribution of the votes across states. Those who feel that this randomness served them in delivering their choice of president instead of the choice of the majority of the people argue that this randomness is good. But if choosing the President by a process that is effectively random is good, let's just go with the toss of a coin. It's a lot cheaper and just as fair and democratic.
There are those that argue that a close vote would require and long drawn out recount. If we don't think the decision is important enough to be worth actually counting the votes, and prefer a system where is easier to count them, let's skip giving millions of people the pretense of a vote. How about just 9? Let the Supreme Court choose the president. Wait, we tried that in 2000, and they gave us Bush. But it's such a nice cozy arrangement where the president appoints the judges and the judges appoints the president. Just think, in a couple of generations everybody in government could be named Bush.
There's just one sensible point I have seen in recent debates: We don't want a system where the president can be determine by, say, 30% of the vote. Personally, I don't see why we should tolerate any circumstance where the president is someone that more than 50% of the people don't want to be their president. That should certainly apply on Election day, but also every day thereafter.
But we already have a system where the president can elected by 30% of the vote ... the Electoral College, particularly when combined with the two party system. The only reason why any president gets more than 50% of the votes (electoral or people's votes) is that the two party system forced the choice down to two. When there's a third party candidate who gets more than a handful of votes, the result of the election is truly random. The process for narrowing down the choice to two isn't designed by reason nor specified by the constitution; it is largely at the whim of the parties and determined mainly by the desire for the president to come from their party.
Even with just two candidates, the winner-take-all system for allocating state's electoral votes means that a candidate needs only 51% of the vote in a state to get 100% of their electoral votes. A president can win a majority in the Electoral College with 51% of the votes in 51% of the states and zero votes in 49% of the State. Therefore he can win with just 25% of the popular vote, if the randomness of voter distribution breaks his way. The more candidates there are, the lower the percentage of the votes required to win.
The same person who argues against electing a president on 30% of the votes, also argues the 100% of State's electoral votes should go the candidate with the most votes in his state – even if that's only 30% of the votes.
Are those who think it right that 51% of the people in their state should determine 100% of their state's contribution to the presidential decision, willing to put their money behind their mouth. How about if the 51% who get nearly two votes pay nearly twice the taxation, and the 49% who get zero votes pay none? “Oh no,” I'm sure they would say, “that would be unfair”.
Moreover all the arguments that say “look the electoral college got it right; the popular vote got it wrong” (because I know who was the right choice), overlook the fact that we don't know who won the real popular vote. How many people didn't vote at all because they already knew that their vote would make no difference because the result for their state was already certain. 3 million people in California voted for Obama but their vote had no effect because he already had a majority. How many millions just stay at home and achieved exactly the same zero effect. How many Californian Republicans didn't bother to vote for McCain because they knew that their voted wouldn't count. How many people would have voted for Nader in Florida 2000 if they thought he had a chance, but instead voted for Gore in the vain hope of preventing a worse evil stealing the election? No one will ever know.
The arguments about the Electoral College seem to me to represent the worst things about this country. The preference for self-serving arguments (no matter how stupid) that lead to the inability to get the simplest thing right.
Electing a president whose actions are likely to effect everyone equally should be done by a process in which everyone gets an equal say. Not because I think that's going to give the best answer (ie my choice) but because the alternative is worse. In the end we humans have found only two ways to resolve disagreements: the exertion of force or a majority decision. I don't believe the majority will make the right decision, but I don't believe I have the right to force my decision on them. I'm happy with a rule that says no one can be president when the majority are again him being president. If that means “No President” until someone can rally more than 50% of the people in their support, that's fine with me. (See Nobody would have been a better President than George W Bush) It cannot be any worse than many of the decisions taken either by the majority or the random selection process using the Electoral College ... and if it does turn out to be worse the incentive to rally 50%+ support for one individual will be so much greater. There's a thought, “The people” might actually have to learn how to govern themselves .. we could call it “Government of the People, for the People, by the People.”