lines in the sand

Electing the Electors

Don Boudreaux questions those who question the democraticness of the Electoral College over the possibility that the winner may not be the candidate who gets the most votes.

There's much talk of how the Electoral College is undemocratic and, by implication, an obnoxious burden on 'the People's' right to choose their U.S. President.

Lots of sound counterarguments in defense of the Electoral College are possible. Here I offer just one - namely: if we don't think it undemocratic to elect representatives to Congress to carry out our political desires on tax policy, environmental regulation, national defense, why is it undemocratic to do largely the same when it comes to choosing a President?

In effect, a vote for presidential-candidate X is a vote for someone to meet in an assembly called the Electoral College -- someone whose platform is that he or she supports candidate X for President. The members of that assembly then vote on who will become the next President of the United States.

Two points are usually overlooked by those on both sides of these arguments, one historical and one current.

Historically, it was a huge step for the Founders to take the power to choose the chief executive out of the legislature's hands and give to a specially chosen group of electors (that can't even include members of Congress).  Definitely a democratic step at the time.

But the least "democratic" thing about the system is not the EC but fact that most states have chosen to direct all their electors to vote for a single candidate.  By not allocating them through some proportional method they make the undemocratic outcome much more likely.

Personally, I could support a direct election, providing that the winner must have an actual majority of the votes.

About Nelson's Amendment: Nevermind.

S. J. Res. 39

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to abolish the electoral college and to provide for the direct popular election of the President and Vice President of the United States.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission by the Congress:

`Article --

`Section 1. The President and Vice President shall be jointly elected by the direct vote of the qualified electors of the several States and territories and the District constituting the seat of Government of the United States. The electors in each State, territory, and the District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the legislative body where they reside.

`Section 2. Congress may determine the time, place, and manner of holding the election, the entitlement to inclusion on the ballot, and the manner in which the results of the election shall be ascertained and declared.'.

The proposed amendment puts the whole presidential election process in the hands of Congress with only one rule: it requires a popular election.  Congress decides who gets on the ballot, how the votes are counted and how the winner is determined.  Anyone who thinks it won't make (and change) the rules to suit its own purposes rather than the public's has never heard of gerrymandering.

If Congress were to decree a runoff system and simply accept the results, fine.  But should it choose to accept a plurality, we're stuck with Democrats and Republicans forever.

It could ultimately make the presidency beholden to Congress and diminish, if not destroy, the separation of powers between the two branches.

This isn't an improvement.

 

Interstate Electoral Conspiracy

A commenter to my previous post advocated the National Popular Vote bill, also known as the Interstate Compact.  That plan skirts the need for amending the Constitution by having a group of states with at least 270 electoral votes among them agree to cast all those votes for the candidate with the highest national total. It would be legal but has the defect that I fear the Nelson proposal will include: it elects the candidate with the most votes whether or not that candidate has a majority.

In the 2000 presidential election, Al Gore did have more votes than George W Bush, but he still had less than 50% of the total thanks to Ralph Nader.  Another way to say that is that 52% of the electorate voted against Gore and Bush, hardly a ringing endorsement of either man.  What was really critical in that case was which of the two top candidates the Nader voters preferred.

A more extreme example happened in Louisiana before Hurricane Katrina.  More than a dozen candidates sought the governorship and the proposed method would have elected Bobby Jindal with less than 33% of the votes.  Kathleen Blanco was second with a little over 18% and since no one had a majority the law required a runoff between the two of them.  In that round Blanco won with about 52%.  Although Jindal had the highest count in the first round most voters preferred her to him.

It's hard for me to support any method that allows a mere plurality to choose the winner.

But the Compact approach has another problem; its fragility.

Suppose it had been in effect for the 2004 election and Massachusetts had signed on.  How long would the state's citizens let that stand after seeing all of their electoral votes going for the man they voted against 2 to 1?  I just don't think the Compact would last long under such strains.

Florida and the Electoral College

Florida is pretty good at finding itself smack-dab in the middle of electoral vote issues, so now our
Senator Bill Nelson is introducing a constitutional amendment that will kill the Electoral College.  Most of my friends probably expect me to oppose this, but I don't.  I am anxious to see how his proposal handles those elections where no candidate receives a majority of the votes, which is what happens about a fourth of the time.

It isn't likely that the electoral college has ever functioned as the founders intended.  In Federalist Paper #68, Alexander Hamilton described a sort of a statewide caucus of electors, who would meet and cast votes for various candidates at their discretion.  He saw  dual advantages in removing the choice from those already in Washington and in placing it in the hands of individuals who were more knowledgeable about the offices and candidates than the general populace.

In practice, though, states quickly sought to increase their power by choosing electors committed to voting for one candidate.  Winner take all became the custom and by 1860 all states were choosing those electors by popular election.  While that may increase the influence of those on the winning side in each state, it disfranchises the rest and can let a less popular candidate win.  Eliminating the College assures that the only two officials responsible to all the people are chosen all the people.

A commentator has said Nelson thinks he "knows more than the founders" but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.  As noted, their design didn't work as they meant it to, but they knew enough to provide a way to fix it.  That is what the senator is trying to do.

I do have one concern, though, and it's a big one.  Since 1872 there have been nine elections in which no one got a majority of the popular vote.  That means at least nine times a president was chosen against the apparent wishes of the majority.  Nelson's text is not yet public so I don't know how he intends to deal with that. 

Right now if no candidate gets a majority of the electoral votes, the House of Representatives chooses from the top three.  I've never liked that solution as it could turn Congress into a parliament, with the  chief executive responsible to it rather than the people.

I'd like to see an instant runoff system, where voters could indicate their second and third choices to be used when no one has a majority.  An actual runoff, with campaign and all, would be acceptable but costly , I could also go with an approval system.

Given that this constitutional amendment will need to be approved by 38 states, most of which will lose influence as a result, this will be an interesting discussion but not much else.

Senator Nelson has some other ideas linked to this, but since I am really-really against them, I'll save them for another post.

Grab Bob Barr's Coattails

Link: Townhall.com::Bob Barr Enters the Race::By William Rusher.

So it seems very likely that, come November, conservatives will find on their ballots not only the names of McCain and assorted liberals but that of a staunch fellow conservative resolutely opposed to big federal spending and military involvement in the Middle East. Most will realize, of course, that Barr has no chance whatsoever of actually becoming president. His role, therefore, is inevitably that of a spoiler -- a person whose only serious function might be to put Obama in the White House. That will be more than enough to turn most conservative voters against him. But a few -- perhaps a dangerously sizeable few -- will vote for Barr.

Barr, of course, knows all this, and he admits that his real hope, strategically, is "to strengthen the ability of the Libertarian Party to be a permanent, viable force in American politics."

Which is all very well, but it's a high price to pay for four or eight years of Obama as president of the United States.

I don't know if the price is that high.  With Obama on the left and Barr on the right, the real issue for conservatives is which one is McCain closer to.   Many may see the race as Barr vs. McBama.  Could helping McCain win be too high a price to keep Obama out?

Of course Barr still won't win, but Libertarians could use his relatively high profile candidacy to seek net gains in other ways.  Republicans have recently lost several Congressional seats in interim elections that were thought safe.  Voters obviously wanted "change" even if the only other choice was a Democrat.  What if there had been another option in those races? 

The party should take advantage of a high profile Libertarian presence on the presidential ballot, and go all out to win local, state, and even congressional races.  Many conservatives not ready to make the leap to a Democratic candidate in their districts might find a Libertarian more palatable than either.  If at all successful, winning a handful of seats could give it real power as a swing vote on many issues.

A spot on the presidential ballot is fine, but the essence of libertarianism is bottom up, not top down.

 

Veep choice is important

Steve Browne.

Maybe our best hope is that McCain chooses a decent running mate.

How about John Bolton?

I don't plan to vote for McCain if I can help it, but that could cause me to reconsider.

Voodoo Oilonomics

Elect me and oil prices instantly drop, says Hillary Clinton in Iowa.

When the world hears her commitment at her inauguration about ending American dependence on foreign fuel, Clinton says, oil-pumping countries will lower prices to stifle America's incentive to develop alternative energy.

"I predict to you, the oil-producing countries will drop the price of oil," Clinton said, speaking at the Manchester YWCA. "They will once again assume, once the cost pressure is off, Americans and our political process will recede."

Clinton argued that former President Jimmy Carter in the late 1970s actually started moving in the right direction toward energy independence, but his successor, Ronald Reagan, "dismantled" that work.

So when the oil producing countries lower oil prices, Americans will presumably buy less of it from them thereby gaining energy independence.

Apparently, Senator Clinton understands how this will work, but it's still not clear to me.

Please don't vote

The Sentinel recently recently complained about low voter turnout for local elections.  I told them it's okay.

Don't vote unless you care -- OrlandoSentinel.com.

The Sentinel asks where the voters are and has a suggestion to get them out:

Schedule local elections to coincide with national races that attract more interest.

Sounds good, but it would mean low-profile issues would be lost in the glare of the glamorous races. Some people would show up to vote for president and also cast a ballot for dogcatcher of some town they didn't even know had dogs.

Low turnout is not really a problem, because officials should be chosen by those who care enough to show up. I don't want my carefully considered vote offset by someone who gives his to a guy he never heard of because his name is listed first on the ballot. With a multitude of polling places open for 12 hours on Election Day and absentee ballots available for weeks before that, voting is already more convenient than going to a movie. People who care less about an election than the latest Hollywood feast of blood (laughs, music, sex -- whatever) should just go on to the show.

Those who do care will not be kept from voting by movies, wild horses, rain, sleet or snow. The problem is not too few voting, it's too few caring.

DOUG MURRAY

Foreign policy?

Coyote Blog: I Honestly Don't Understand Where We Are on Foreign Policy.

Is it then Pelosi's position that morality in foreign policy consists
of pointing out evil actions committed by our allies eighty years ago,
but avoiding calling out current evil actions by our enemies?

Except for declaring war, if I remember right, the Constitution assigns the foreign policy portfolio to the President.  This situation makes it pretty obvious why: despite her position, Pelosi is essentially a local politician who is answerable to (i.e. gets reelected by) the good people of San Fran.  She sees calling the Turks to answer for their grandparents as a winner with her voters, whatever the consequences.

I became a cynic when it hit me that politicians don't make economic decisions but political ones that have economic consequences.  Then stem cells and global warming made it clear that this principle applies throughout the sciences.  This is just another example that shows there really are no limits.

Her action has nothing to with foreign policy.  It's just the play she's decided to call on this down in the political football game.  And it just happens to have foreign policy consequences.

Sincere Flattery

At one time or another a surprisingly wide variety of commentators, from Freepers to Democratic Underground, et al, have drawn parallels between Hillary Clinton and Richard Nixon.

Now her campaign team even includes a burglar.

HT: Alan Sullivan