George Friedman has written a clear explanation of why we have the Electoral College. It's worth reading if you're one of those who want to dismantle it—or one of those unsure if it's defensible.
I understand, and agree, that a direct democracy is not necessarily the best political system. Pure democracy, after all, is another word for the tyranny of the majority—or worse, if the choice is not binary. I also agree with the assertion that at least some form of free market is necessary to make a democracy fair, because without economic freedom all other freedoms go out the window. What puzzles me is Switzerland.
In the European Union, equality and unanimity between members is critical, but the United States chose a much more sophisticated system, combining a deep democratic process, with mediating layers to limit or block public passions.
The United States is a vast nation with highly differentiated interests. From the beginning, the founders were forced to face the fact that holding the nation together required concern for the interests of all states, and not only for those densely settled. A pure democracy would consider the nation’s interests as a whole. The founders were aware that the nation was not a whole, although all regions were needed.
The United States is a geopolitical invention. The 13 original colonies were very different from each other. As the nation expanded westward, even more exotic states became part of the union. Constantly alienating smaller states through indifference could undermine the national interest. The Senate and the electoral college both stop that from happening, or at least limit it. Any state can matter in any election.
You might charge that this is undemocratic. It is. It was intended to be. The founders did not create a direct democracy for a good reason. It would have prevented the United States from emerging as a stable union. They created a republican form of government based on representation and a federal system based on sovereign states. Because of that, a candidate who ignores or insults the “flyover” states is likely to be writing memoirs instead of governing.
I get it. It makes a lot of sense. But Switzerland, though much, much smaller (about half the size of South Carolina), comprises 26 cantons that are at least as diverse as the American states. Think four official national languages and cultures, and that doesn't even count the dozens of different forms of German. Moreover, its individual cantons have much more independence than the states of the U.S.
Yet Switzerland is both a direct democracy and a very stable union. Is it the size that makes the difference? Or something else?
Direct democracy works in Puerto Rico as well. We have 78 cities, which belong to 8 representative districts (for the purpose of electing senators and representatives).
I have always found the U.S. electoral system confusing, but I suppose if it has endured this long, it must be something good.
What makes Puerto Rico a direct democracy?
The Electoral College insures EVERY one of the 50 United States is represented in the Presidential election. To produce electors for a particular candidate in the December 19th elector election, there had to be a majority of voters in each state who preferred that candidate. It meant in fact, that candidate "won that state".
If instead we ditched the Electoral College plan for a pure popular majority, the candidates for President would ignore the vast majority of states and only campaign in the major population concentrations of the Nation. Presidents therefor would be picked mainly by inhabitants of the biggest cities in the country and wouldn't even bother to campaign anywhere else.
Would YOU really want the fringe Liberal contingents mainly living on the East and West Coasts and in a very few other spots always being the ones to select your President ?
Look at the colored charts showing counties in the U.S. that are "red colored" indicating Trump won them and just imagine most of them not even being included in the selection. Candidates could and would concentrate only in the major population centers.
A good example of of a pure democracy was once explained very well: Picture a liquored up Lynch mob.
Good and interesting post. I'm not a scholar on this topic by any means, but doesn't George (whom I admire) miss the central point of the electoral college--how to accommodate slavery in a "democracy"? See https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-the-electoral-college/2012/11/02/2d45c526-1f85-11e2-afca-58c2f5789c5d_story.html?utm_term=.919e3604e841. Or http://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/.
One thing that's always bothered me about the electoral college system is the winner-take-all approach nearly all states have adopted. It seems to me that this policy has nothing to do with weighting the smaller states more heavily, but it's the main reason that the electoral college is so hard to understand and feels so unfair.
Why, if I lived in California, should I go vote? It's blue, done deal. Same for Wyoming, except its foregone conclusion is red. While the electoral college ensures the small states aren't ignored (in theory), the winner-take-all approach ensures all but the big battleground states are mostly ignored. Off the top of my head, that's PA, FL, OH, and some others.
I figured that if we left in place the electoral representation and instead did away with the winner-take-all system, things would look a lot more interesting. So I got the data from http://uselectionatlas.org/ and plugged it into an Excel sheet. (This was a while ago, so some states hadn't 100% finished counting yet.)
Here's what happened: Gary Johnson got 15 electoral votes. Other third party candidates got 3 votes. And Donald Trump tied Hillary Clinton at 260 votes apiece. Ooooh, runoff!
If I disregard the third party candidates and proportionately divide up the electoral votes between the heavyweights, Mrs. Clinton wins 270 to 268. (That's not proper procedure, of course, but just playing around with numbers. I still think there would have to be a runoff election.)
So, although I think the winner-takes-all method is madness and unfair, it does seem to bring clarity to the result, without ever a need for a delaying runoff. I would love to see a proportional allocation, though, because then you'd truly get every state into play.
And for those who cared: small states would still be slightly favored.
Stephan, as you probably know, to have a runoff would require a constitutional amendment. The current provision is that if nobody gets to 271 the House of Representatives chooses the President.
Yes, I knew that - the choosing part, anyway (though I thought it was 270 it took to win). I figure that's why the winner-takes-all system is in place: in all but the weirdest constellations in our duopoly, the winner will be clear without Congress getting involved. In my "simulation," they'd be getting involved. I'm too lazy to redo the simulation for previous elections just to generate the data on the likelihood of them getting involved with picking the prez over time... but I'll send you the excel file if you happen to be motivated!
After the comments on Puerto Rico, these comments are discussions of the US electoral system. Mom's question was, why does a direct democracy work in Switzerland?
Oversimplified answer: we're a small country, and surrounded by the big guys we (mostly) voluntarily left.
Point to ponder: while the executive branch in the cantons is elected by direct vote, the national executive branch is elected by parliament. It is an unwritten rule that the seven members of that branch should represent the strongest parties in parliament and at least two language regions.
Memo to self: don't make a post that generates a lot of comment when you're out of town and unable to give it the attention it needs. Except of course that I have no idea which posts are going to generate comment. And maybe it's better, anyway, to do as some bloggers do: let the readers carry on debate in the comment section, and don't butt in. :)
Be that as it may, I'm finally getting around to following the links and making a (perhaps) final comment.
I didn't realize Switzerland wasn't a direct democracy in all areas. The formation of the national executive by parliament seems wise to me, though nothing's perfect. But I do fear complete democracy, which as I've said many times is the tyranny of the majority.
I find it ironic that the people who are most pushing for direct election of the president (this time, anyway) are also the ones who most loudly proclaim the rights of minorities and the need for curbing the power of majorities.
I think that not letting 50.001% of the population run roughshod over the remaining 49.999% could be the greatest benefit of being a union of individual states, except that more and more we are making decisions on the federal level. More powers left to the states—plus the all-important economic freedom that allows one to be able to afford to move—makes it possible for people to "vote with their feet" and still remain Americans.
Is there another way, or a better way, to accommodate such a diverse population? I like to think that if Switzerland can do it, even with all those languages crowded into such a small space, we could do it, too.
Again, we are smaller. That helps: we have a representative per 30'000-40'000 inhabitants. For the US, it's about 20x more constituents. From "Nothing To Vote For" I gleaned that the founders of the USA had envisioned 30'000 as a proper upper limit... maybe they were on to something.
Also, while mobility is on the rise here, too, the ease with which Americans pack up and move far away is still foreign to us, and most cantons are linguistically quite homogeneous. But we have created a culture of recognizing the other languages as important (if perhaps more in theory than in practice), which probably helps the mutual respect between cantons. The USA has no such blatantly obvious differences between states, which might be a disadvantage in creating unity, because it is assumed and taken for granted rather than cultivated and cherished.
My 2 cents...
