Majoritarianism vs. the U.S. Constitutional System
We Romney voters might find ourselves on the winning side of the national popular vote and yet lose the electoral college, whereby President Obama would be re-elected.
If that happens, I imagine a lot of Republicans who favored keeping the Electoral College after the 2000 election would change their minds. Some would change for partisan expediency, while others would argue that once a century is tolerable, but twice in four elections is too frequent. And many Democrats who hated the Electoral College in 2000 (even more than they hated the Supreme Court) would happily rub our noses in it.
Many pro-Electoral College arguments are based on other (small-r) republican principles, like ensuring small states are valued by presidential candidates. On the other hand, support for pure majority rule is the simplest argument for eliminating the electoral college--"One man, one vote."
Of course, "one man, one vote" was never a principle the Founders believed in, at least not in the way we "moderns" conceive it. This is obvious by the establishment of the Electoral College, as well as the allocation of two senators per state (selected by the state governments in the original design).
That raises a question, one which I have never heard anyone ask: Is it possible to favor the elimination of the Electoral College without also favoring the abolishment the United States Senate?
Is such a position logically consistent? And if it's not, does the prospect of abolishing the Senate give anyone who would do away with the Electoral College pause?
- Comment (44)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (6)
Comments:
Sep '11
Re: Majoritarianism vs. the U.S. Constitutional System
The electoral college is a very large part of our federalism; no matter how the election turns out, the electoral college is not on the table.
I understand your thinking about the parallels between the US Senate & the electoral college. The structure of both is part of the balancing act between majority rule and protection of the rights of the minority. Whether one can logically argue against one & for the other I don't know, but I can say this; we shouldn't mess with either one. The federal government already doesn't like the idea of states rights (New Deal/Great Society/Obama progressives especially); why give them an easier time?
Besides, eliminating the electoral college would require more than a court decision; it would require a real, old-school Constitutional amendment.
Apr '12
Re: Majoritarianism vs. the U.S. Constitutional System
I think to be logically consistent, one would aregue for the elimination of the Senate.
I, on the other hand, would keep the Electoral College and repeal the 17th Amendment. Too much Democracy goin' on 'round heah!
Mar '11
Re: Majoritarianism vs. the U.S. Constitutional System
I think the reason we will never find peace on the issue of the Electoral College is because, in its present form, it bears no resemblence to what the Framers intended.
Richard Epstein made an important point on the latest podcast that voters were never supposed to cast ballots for a specific presidential candidate - rather, the EC itself was meant to be a deliberative body. But for all intents and purposes, our presidential election system is just a disproportionately weighted popular vote.
The entire point of federalism is that states count - but in our current practice, we don't favor states, we favor the citizens of certain states over those of others. If we really want to talk federalism, let's think about making the presidential election (like Senatorial elections) truly indirect.
Mar '11
Re: Majoritarianism vs. the U.S. Constitutional System
I agree with almost everything Mendel has said above.
Whatever my personal prejudice may be in this regard--and I do wish that we had a more deliberative electoral system--the Founders should perhaps have foreseen that the rise of the party system would mean that the Electoral College would not function in the manner they hoped. We might say that they were blinded by a kind of noble-minded blindness.
Nevertheless, I do not think, given the present drift of our democracy, that attempting to reform this institution would actually result in a more deliberative body--quite the opposite, I think it would be abolished altogether, and one of the last remaining checks on majoritarianism would be removed.
Though it does not function precisely as intended, it does have a number of salutary effects, including ensuring small states are not entirely ignored (and they would be otherwise in favor of large urban districts).
Mar '11
Re: Majoritarianism vs. the U.S. Constitutional System
As far as the logical consistency, I don't think in order to be completely consistent you'd have to favor abolishing the Senate--but that's largely because we passed the 17th Amendment and therefore defanged the more deliberative of the two bodies of Congress.
You are correct, however, to note that the intention behind both institutions was to limit the immediate impact any particular faction, including a faction of the majority, could have at any given time, and to attempt to broaden the view of citizens beyond the contingencies of any particular moment. As democracy has increased, that deliberative element has been reduced in character.
To some extent it has been replaced by the rise of a professional bureaucracy, but whether one thinks that well or ill probably depends on how you judge the difference between the sort of man who would have served as a Senator and the sort of man now serving as a bureaucrat. Do they have the same cast of mind?
Jun '12
Re: Majoritarianism vs. the U.S. Constitutional System
I have been thnking about a 2000 election in reverse electoral win for the Dems. That has to be what they are banking on now. As a small state citizen I support the electoral college system. GOP ground game has got to dominate in the swings. The Dems are going to pull every cheating strategy they have out of their dirty bag, you can count on it.
Oct '12
Re: Majoritarianism vs. the U.S. Constitutional System
The United States Is ... Or Are?
We now have a 'national' identity that's associated with the entire United States; once upon a time, 'national' identities were with the individual states, not with the federated states as a whole. It's a natural development -- my family and I just moved from MA this past January, so technically we were both Americans and Massachusettsians in 2011, but now are both Americans and Ohioans in 2012.
The dual affiliation, as well as the fluidity of the state-level affiliation, are both unnatural to the tribal instinct. I would submit that despite instinct, maintaining the tension of that duality is important in sustaining the Founders' experiment. The EC, the former appointment of Senators by state legislatures, and so on -- all served to maintain the attachment of state citizens to the political machinery of their state of residence and that of the federal government, whereas now everyone focuses almost exclusively on Washington.
To answer your question: I suspect an argument could be constructed for retaining the Senate but discarding the EC, but if one rejects the original intent of the latter, the justification for the former evaporates with it.
Mar '12
Re: Majoritarianism vs. the U.S. Constitutional System
Get rid of the EC and the Senate and we will be a socialist country within a decade. The Founders were right to fear "majority rule" by the mob. Once the 'takers' outnumber the 'producers' majority rule becomes majority tyranny.
How can we decry the concept of a "living constitution" and then suggest gutting what the Founders created?
Mar '11
Re: Majoritarianism vs. the U.S. Constitutional System
Crow's Nest:
the intention behind both institutions was to limit the immediate impact any particular faction, including a faction of the majority, could have at any given time, and to attempt to broaden the view of citizens beyond the contingencies of any particular moment.
I think this is spot on. The Electoral College, as we currently practice it, might do a decent job of letting all voices be heard and balance interests. But the downside to a de facto popular vote is politicians who focus on the "shiny ball" issues that captivate the public while ignoring the less visible issues that often matter much more.
As democracy has increased, that deliberative element has been reduced in character.
To some extent it has been replaced by the rise of a professional bureaucracy,
In addition to the bureaucracy, I think our creeping majoritarianism can explain much of the increase in the power (and importance) of both the presidency and the Supreme Court. We might rejoice at the notion of congressional gridlock as a brake on the progressive agenda, but the US is not immune from the truism that power abhors a vacuum.
Mar '11
Re: Majoritarianism vs. the U.S. Constitutional System
Brian Skinn:
I would submit that despite instinct, maintaining the tension of that duality is important in sustaining the Founders' experiment. The EC, the former appointment of Senators by state legislatures, and so on -- all served to maintain the attachment of state citizens to the political machinery of their state of residenceandthat of the federal government, whereas now everyone focuses almost exclusively on Washington.
I agree. Federalism cannot thrive if individual citizens only feel loosely associated with their state of residence.
I also wonder whether the Framers envisioned the way many western states would be created. The original colonies sprung up fairly "organically" and had their own unique populations and cultures, but many western states were more or less centrally planned (sometimes with political objectives in mind).
Even though conservative policies profit from our numerous, lightly-populated western states, I can't help but imagine that the Framers would have set up the Electoral College somewhat differently had they anticipated our expansion as it actually happened.
Edited on October 29, 2012 at 3:56pmDec '10
Re: Majoritarianism vs. the U.S. Constitutional System
Brian Skinn: The United States Is ... Or Are?
We now have a 'national' identity that's associated with the entire United States; once upon a time, 'national' identities were with the individual states, · 1 hour ago
Have you ever been to Texas?
Feb '12
Re: Majoritarianism vs. the U.S. Constitutional System
For all those who would like to see the 17th Amendment repealed, I have a question:
How would you address the very real problem that the 17th Amendment was designed to fix -- namely, that becoming a senator was a matter of strategic bribes and backroom mutual-back-scratching sessions? I fail to see how being elected by a majority of the voting public in a state is significantly more corrupt than being elected by a majority of state legislatures.
Jun '11
Re: Majoritarianism vs. the U.S. Constitutional System
If we win the popular vote but lose the electoral college, we will have lost the election. The electoral college needs to stay.
The founding dads were smarter than we are.
Dec '10
Re: Majoritarianism vs. the U.S. Constitutional System
Amy Schley: For all those who would like to see the 17th Amendment repealed, I have a question:
How would you address the very real problem that the 17th Amendment was designed to fix -- namely, that becoming a senator was a matter of strategic bribes and backroom mutual-back-scratching sessions? I fail to see how being elected by a majority of the voting public in a state is significantly more corrupt than being elected by a majority of state legislatures. · 0 minutes ago
Bribes to individual state legislators did not generally come from the Federal treasury. No person has the money to bribe an entire state, so our current system consists of the incumbent bribing the entire state with public moneys. This costs ME
Feb '12
Re: Majoritarianism vs. the U.S. Constitutional System
Mendel
I agree. Federalism cannot thrive if individual citizens only feel loosely associated with their state of residence.
I also wonder whether the Framers envisioned the way many western states would be created. The original colonies sprung up fairly "organically" and had their own unique populations and cultures, but many western states were more or less centrally planned (sometimes with political objectives in mind).
It is interesting though, Mendel, that despite being "planned" western and mid-western states do have distinct personalities and cultures. I live in Kansas and work in Missouri, perhaps the two states most clearly planned with centralized political objectives -- and on so many levels, it's very obvious which state was settled by busybody Yankee progressives and which state was settled by cantankerous Southern hillbillies.
Most obvious: the downtown Kansas City Costco has the best beer/ wine/ liquor selection in town for the price. The Overland Park Costco can't sell any alcohol.
Mar '12
Re: Majoritarianism vs. the U.S. Constitutional System
I prefer corruption on an individual level to corruption of the public. Today, the supposed deliberative body is elected by people who have little or no personal knowledge of the candidate, only the lies that pass for campaign ads. Under the old system, those responsible knew what they were getting, for better or worse.
Are we better off today because Presidential nominees are chosen by voters and not in back room deals? I don't think so.
Jun '10
Re: Majoritarianism vs. the U.S. Constitutional System
The electoral college is the result of having a bicameral legislature. It's part of the Founder's attempts to disperse power by establishing a system of checks and balances. It's a feature, not a bug. If you want to discuss the dangers inherent in a small "r" republican system, we could make quite a list. I'll start:
* A loss of civic virtue in the body politic (aka dependency).
* A government bureaucracy that usurps legislative power unto itself.
* A "free" press that throws its lot in with the ruling oligarchy.
* A professional political class that rigs the system in favor of incumbency.
* The corrupting influence of money on national policy.
The American Republic is standing on the brink of a major crisis even as I type, but it doesn't have anything to do with the electoral college. Power may ultimately corrupt men, but it's also true that corrupt men are drawn to power. Therein lies the problem.
Mar '11
Re: Majoritarianism vs. the U.S. Constitutional System
Amy Schley
It is interesting though, Mendel, that despite being "planned" western and mid-western states do have distinct personalities and cultures.
I agree that, political motives notwithstanding, midwestern and western states have much more coherent cultures and founding histories than, say, the average gerrymandered congressional district.
Still, considering how much thought the Framers gave to preventing factions from gaming the system, it seems unthinkable that they would not have adjusted either the admission process or the Electoral College had they foreseen the potential for politicizing the establishment of new states.
Aug '10
Re: Majoritarianism vs. the U.S. Constitutional System
I have no problem with our system if Romney wins the popular vote and loses the electoral college. I believe our current system is much better than direct election of the president by popular vote.
Besides, Romney is going to get at least 300 electoral votes so this whole argument is moot.
Mar '11
Re: Majoritarianism vs. the U.S. Constitutional System
Amy Schley:
How would you address the very real problem that the 17th Amendment was designed to fix -- namely, that becoming a senator was a matter of strategic bribes and backroom mutual-back-scratching sessions?
Amy--as in most things in politics, there is a trade-off here. There is no way, in any form of government so long as it is run by men and not angels, to remove any and all forms of corruption. One could argue that the interests in states today to which Senators are beholden for their election coffers exert plenty of corrupting influence and that the 17th amendment hardly solved that problem.
At least if this system were devolved and fragmented to the States, it would be several local lobbies fighting each other, rather than a concentrated uber-lobby in DC exerting influence.
Unlikely as it would be to pass, the windfall benefits of selecting experienced, proven legislators who have already proven their worth to their constituents and state legislatures, and who are far more likely to be federalist in their instincts, would be an improvement over the current mess and help give some teeth to the 9th and 10th amendments on domestic issues.