How John C. Dvorak is Wrong: Electoral College edition
John C. Dvorak, noted commentator over at PCMag and This Week In Tech, put up an essay on why he thinks the electoral college will be disbanded: http://dvorak.org/blog/essays/electoral.htm.
The main point he has is that the media, ever since Bush won the 2000 election, is pointing out the problems in the electoral college. While the media has been putting out the whole idea of "red state-blue state" (which I still hate, by the way), it has only been in the forefront since Bush has been a love him/hate him kind of president.
But here is one thing I think he got wrong, and thus wrecked his whole premise:
"The big networks also got stiffed during the last election as all the real money went to states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida where there were a lot of electoral votes and which were on the fence."
The reality is: this has always been the case. While I can't cite any studies right now (they were cited many times during my college level political science classes), you will see that presidential candidates tend to visit states that are on the fence alot more then those that are garenteed victories.
Which is another point he misses, there has always been states that are garenteed victories. It's something that comes with such a system. For example, Maine has gone democratic ever since the '92 election. Thinking stratigicly, you would have to go to a state that is on the fence and has enough points to carry you to victory.
The media has been a passive organization. When it comes to politics, the news media acts like a sports commentator. They aren't really part of the action, they just call it as they see it (which often falls into the "he said-she said type of mentality).
The real reason we won't see the electoral college changed or disbanded is one that Dvorak glosses over: elected politicians don't like a change in the rules. Think of it logicly, if you win by those rules, would you change them? Would you change the rules to something that you don't know.
Recently, the Democrats shot themselves in the foot over something like this. With the McCain-Feingold reform put into place banning soft money, the Democrats voted along with it. It turned out that the Democrats relied far more on soft money then the Republicans, thus cutting off a huge advantage that they had. Changing the electoral college would have far greater affect over how presidential politics is played.
Even then, what do we change it to? It would have even worse problems if it was purely based on the popular vote. If it was changed to where every state has equal votes, not only would it be more daunting for candidates, but it would put more voting power to people who live in less populated states.
There is only one way the electoral college will change, the voters will have to rebel against it. The only way for that to really happen is if it looks to interfere in their right to vote in a democratic election.
As is, the only change I see is making the electoral votes in a state purportional rather then victor takes all. That is an issue that has to be carried at a state level (and some states do have purportional electoral votes). Plus, as said before, politicans will fight such a change unless they know they'll lose on the issue.
But the issue isn't something that is in the forefront, nor something people consider a problem. There has been only four elections where the victor only won the electoral votes, but lost the popular vote. Bush happens to be one of them. It isn't as much of a problem for the current system as some would make it out to be.
True, one could concievably carry only a fraction of the states and still win, but it's very doubtful. Presidents want to have the support of their electorate, which is the entire US. They want to have at least 50%+1, if just to show that the people support him. Presidents would love to have 60%, since that would be a good mandate (or at least until Bush declared otherwise). The actual rules and metagame make it so then it at least appears problems with the system is minimal. Until a problem that is fully attributed to the rules shows up, there won't be a change. Period.
The main point he has is that the media, ever since Bush won the 2000 election, is pointing out the problems in the electoral college. While the media has been putting out the whole idea of "red state-blue state" (which I still hate, by the way), it has only been in the forefront since Bush has been a love him/hate him kind of president.
But here is one thing I think he got wrong, and thus wrecked his whole premise:
"The big networks also got stiffed during the last election as all the real money went to states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida where there were a lot of electoral votes and which were on the fence."
The reality is: this has always been the case. While I can't cite any studies right now (they were cited many times during my college level political science classes), you will see that presidential candidates tend to visit states that are on the fence alot more then those that are garenteed victories.
Which is another point he misses, there has always been states that are garenteed victories. It's something that comes with such a system. For example, Maine has gone democratic ever since the '92 election. Thinking stratigicly, you would have to go to a state that is on the fence and has enough points to carry you to victory.
The media has been a passive organization. When it comes to politics, the news media acts like a sports commentator. They aren't really part of the action, they just call it as they see it (which often falls into the "he said-she said type of mentality).
The real reason we won't see the electoral college changed or disbanded is one that Dvorak glosses over: elected politicians don't like a change in the rules. Think of it logicly, if you win by those rules, would you change them? Would you change the rules to something that you don't know.
Recently, the Democrats shot themselves in the foot over something like this. With the McCain-Feingold reform put into place banning soft money, the Democrats voted along with it. It turned out that the Democrats relied far more on soft money then the Republicans, thus cutting off a huge advantage that they had. Changing the electoral college would have far greater affect over how presidential politics is played.
Even then, what do we change it to? It would have even worse problems if it was purely based on the popular vote. If it was changed to where every state has equal votes, not only would it be more daunting for candidates, but it would put more voting power to people who live in less populated states.
There is only one way the electoral college will change, the voters will have to rebel against it. The only way for that to really happen is if it looks to interfere in their right to vote in a democratic election.
As is, the only change I see is making the electoral votes in a state purportional rather then victor takes all. That is an issue that has to be carried at a state level (and some states do have purportional electoral votes). Plus, as said before, politicans will fight such a change unless they know they'll lose on the issue.
But the issue isn't something that is in the forefront, nor something people consider a problem. There has been only four elections where the victor only won the electoral votes, but lost the popular vote. Bush happens to be one of them. It isn't as much of a problem for the current system as some would make it out to be.
True, one could concievably carry only a fraction of the states and still win, but it's very doubtful. Presidents want to have the support of their electorate, which is the entire US. They want to have at least 50%+1, if just to show that the people support him. Presidents would love to have 60%, since that would be a good mandate (or at least until Bush declared otherwise). The actual rules and metagame make it so then it at least appears problems with the system is minimal. Until a problem that is fully attributed to the rules shows up, there won't be a change. Period.
posted by SeanM at 8:46 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home