I'll look back again, before looking forward... In the 1800 US Census, the state of Pennsylvania had 10% more free people than the largest of the slave states, Virginia; but Pennsylvania ended up with 20% fewer electoral votes. With both the Electoral College and the "Three-fifths Rule" Virginia came up as the big winner. - And, not surprisingly, a slave-owning Virginian won the office of President in the first 8 of 9 elections.
On paper, small states appear to get a boost from the use of the Electoral College. In reality, they are side-lined like any other non-battleground state. Consider the small states with only one Congressional district today - Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming. None were swing states in 2016, nor were they on the radar of campaigns or candidates. In any case, why should some states and some voters get a special advantage in the election for the President, who is meant to represent everyone? The Senate was created to address the needs of smaller states, as were a host of rights and protections that all states share.
Having a national election decided by a small number of swing states rather than the general population was problematic from the beginning. Over time it has divided states and voters into two tiers. The much contested swing states - and the rest of the country that is taken for granted. The irrelevance of most states - red and blue alike - has helped to drive bi-partisan support for reform before the last election. Votes and voters are devalued by where they live - in contradiction to democracy's most fundamental principle of one person, one vote - which was affirmed again in 2016 by a unanimous Supreme Court decision.
In the 2016 Presidential election, 36 states and 2/3 of all US voters essentially stood on the sidelines. Instead of a national election we have a presidential contest focused on the outcomes and voter preferences of a subset of swing states. In the last election, it left close to two-thirds of the nation's 231 million eligible voters residing in non-battleground states as spectators and rank outsiders. Most Americans watched television ads aimed at swing states only. Campaign volunteers skipped working in their own states on weekends to go to states that were decided upon as the bigger prize. As a nation, we ended it all watching results of a handful of swing states, and wondering whether votes in Florida's panhandle, Virginia's suburbs, Wisconsin's rural vote, or Michigan's Upper Peninsula would tip the balance of those states' votes.
Campaigns target all their money and attention to just a few states. Consider the 2016 election: Presidential campaigns and allied groups spent 99% of advertising dollars in just 14 states. Of 216 campaign stops by Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates, only 12 took place outside of swing states. Four super states alone - Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, and Pennsylvania - had 57% of all visits and 71% of the advertisements!
The Presidential election turns out to be a party that most of us, 147 million eligible voters (in 2016), were not invited to - except to ratify our state's likely results and watch the real contest unfold on TV on on-line.
As the above process is laid out, it becomes visible that we have lost the essence of democracy - peer to peer, neighbor to neighbor politics. We miss the chance to fully engage in elections as a voter or campaigner in our own backyard, and to have local media focus on our local races or ballot measures, as well as national trends. We miss the incentive to start a conversation with a neighbor or friend regardless of where they live.
And our nation's newest voters lose the most. The new wave of youngsters coming of voting age is usually ignored in most Presidential campaigns. Campaigns focus their resources and voter contacts on likely voters and swing states. This concentration of competition within a few states is one reason more than half of Americans report never being personally contacted by a major campaign about voting. For the age group of 18 to 35 year-olds, it jumps to 75% never being contacted about voting.
The Electoral College drives another source of civic polarization in an election decided by states rather than the nation as a whole - the division of red and blue states. This is something the Founding Fathers could not have predicted, nor did they have time to concern themselves with this possibility under the weight of war debt and a Constitution to write and ratify. Yet these divisions persist between election years. The designation as a red or blue state causes us to form opinions about various states and their inhabitants, without considering the diversity of views that exist in every state. The colors of red and blue have become "a proxy for all the differences in values and lifestyle that seemed to be cleaving the country into warring tribes." A focus on state voter turnout, rather than state partisanship, might make for a healthier civic exercise, harnessing the citizenship benefits from active, engaged, and informed participation in all spheres.
Finally, people living in non-battleground states have come to learn, during the past elections, that their vote really does not matter, and that has a very unfortunate impact on voter turnout across the country. Voter turnout in non-battleground states is, on average, 5 to 8 percentage points lower than in battleground states. If we want to foster a more engaged electorate - in every state, in every county, in every city or village, in every precinct - then we need to send a clear message that the vote of every citizen matters, regardless of where they live.
*****
In the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Pennsylvania's James Wilson - a major force behind the Constitution and one of the six judges chosen by George Washington for the country's first Supreme Court - proposed the Presidency be decided by popular vote. It became clear, almost immediately, that would not work for slaveholder states or those favoring, at the time, a more elite model of choosing the President.
Lately some people have suggested alternatives that work within the framework of the states. Most commonly, what Nebraska and Maine already do - allocate the electors of the Electoral College by district and have them allot their votes for President to the winner of each district. This can have the small effect of putting a few sections of a state into play. The two Congressional districts around Omaha, Nebraska and northern Maine made the list in 2016 as battleground votes. Given deeply gerrymandered districts drawn to create safe seats for two major parties, it's a non-starter for a national solution - unless gerrymandering is removed from all Congressional districts in each and every state. Only 37 of 435 Congressional seats were considered to be 'competitive' in 2016. You could color in the winner of 90% of the districts well in advance of the Presidential election, making the problem worse, not better.
The popular vote is the standard used by all 50 states for the Governor and every other election, the same way it is for every democracy that directly elects its leaders. It is used in high schools, clubs, companies, associations, village, towns, cities, counties, and states. Why not for the Presidency of the United States of America in this day and age, with television, radio, the internet - and don't forget newspapers! - available almost everywhere.
What do people and politicians say are the drawbacks to using the popular vote?
The main comment is the contention, by some, that less populated areas will be passed over and/or that big cities will dominate.
The reality is that the large majority of Americans live in the suburbs or in rural areas. All voters of every kind of political leaning who must be appealed to. Compared to what happens now, with 99% of advertising being done in 14 states only, campaigns would have to compete in far more media markets, both large and small, in all parts of the country. The 50 largest American cities only represent 15% of the population of the United States.
In the larger scheme, things have changed since 1787. Information disseminates everywhere and through multiple channels. But more to the point of democracy, beyond the media, in a national popular vote there is a greater incentive for people, campaigns, and civic organizations to engage with neighbors, friends, and voters locally and across states where engagement, education, and democracy really happens.
Of course, a national popular election brings the challenge and potential cost of a national recount. - Don't forget the hanging chad fiasco. - The popular vote margin was less than 1% in only 6 of our 58 elections so far, which could have triggered a recount. Our large states already manage this, currently. In addition, the changes made by the Help Americans Vote Act in 2002 have improved balloting, audits, and recount procedures, and the progress is ongoing. The infrequency of recounts gives us time to spread out the cost. It would be something to plan for, if the popular vote for President is legalized. Democracy and full participation of all citizens is worth it.
Map of the 2016 Presidential Voting
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.