By Mark Davis
Friday, November 02, 2012
As Tuesday’s election ticks ever nearer, my fervent wish
is a solid electoral college win for Mitt Romney. Not to get greedy, but I’d
like it in the bag before the wee hours of Wednesday morning.
I hope this is not asking too much. October’s poll swing
and a broadening visceral sense tell me this election may not feature the
nail-biting closeness we have been told to expect for months.
But if we are to be ensnared by a down-to-the-wire
finish, get ready for the attendant micro-focus on the Electoral College, and
the resulting debate over whether it should be scrapped.
I spent more than a little of my early adulthood weighing
the merits of deciding the presidency on purely popular vote. It took me too
long to cast off the myopia and historical illiteracy that led to my
ambivalence.
So on the eve of this election, I hope to unburden anyone
troubled by this dilemma. To those actively seeking to ditch the Electoral
College, I hope to dash your efforts on the rocks of shame.
Simply put, the Electoral College is one of the most
brilliant things conceived by our founders-- and not just because it kept Al
Gore out of the White House.
It is a cornerstone of American exceptionalism, one of
the unique things that makes our system one to be cherished against a tapestry
of other enlightened nations following a more ordinary model.
We are not Finland or Jordan or Brazil. All nations have
some substrata of political divides-- regions, provinces, some even called
“states.” But no nation has ever risen from birth as a collection of states
afforded so much stature that they are allowed, even expected, to routinely
trump the national government in various collisions of governing interests.
Residents of my state of Texas share U.S. citizen status
with residents of Oregon, Maine and Illinois. But our lives, cultures and
passions may differ. The founders wanted a nation that exalted and protected
those close-to-home interests. This is the precious gift of federalism, which
has allowed our nation to flourish both literally and conceptually as a beacon
for how to afford citizens the greatest liberty.
The framers of the Constitution could have easily
fashioned an election system in which we funnel our votes into one giant
hopper, count them all on election night (hoping on each occasion that we don’t
get Florida 2000 on a national level), and the winner is the candidate with the
most votes.
But they didn’t. And there was a reason.
The President is not just an expanded version of your
Congressman. While the House of Representatives was established as an enclave
for direct election, the Senate was originally elected by state legislatures,
and the presidency was fashioned as an executive position (hence the name of
that branch of government), filled by someone who would manage a federation of
independent states, not a landscape of millions of individuals.
The realization that the Presidency is not like a race
for your local school board is a gateway to dismissing the other arguments
against indirect state-level election.
If it is an irritant that the voters in Wyoming may wield
a sliver more per capita clout than the voters of California, there is
comforting logic in realizing that this compels presidential candidates to
build constituencies across a landscape of less populous states rather than
just campaigning in our largest cities.
If it is discouraging that votes in solidly red or blue
states seem lost in an ocean of foregone conclusion, there is inspiration to be
found in the states that have changed from one party’s hands to another as
political winds shift. The South was staunchly Democrat as the 1950s became the
sixties. Wisconsin was a reliable blue state seemingly yesterday. A few states
may change color before our eyes on Tuesday.
Red-state Democrats and blue-state Republicans are
welcome to spark movements that lead to such change. Some succeed and some
fail. But along the way, the votes of minority parties are not lost in a vacuum
of obscurity.
Barack Obama walloped John McCain by 24 points in 2008.
His lead over Romney in the Golden State appears to be roughly half of that, a
potential leap of substantial significance.
Obama lost Texas by twelve points in 2008. An active
state Democrat party, buoyed by changing demographics, is hungry to narrow the
gap for future presidential races. That’s not likely next Tuesday, but after that,
who knows? Varying margins of party domination are big news.
Changing our electoral system would require a
constitutional amendment, a bar which is properly high. But there is mischief
afoot by factions seeking to destroy the founders’ intent with a pernicious
initiative called the National Popular Vote Bill.
It asks state voters to surrender their influence in a
scheme by which a state’s electors would go to the candidate winning the
national popular vote.
Sadly, from California to Illinois to New Jersey, it has
passed in eight states and the District of Columbia, totaling 132 electoral
votes.
If that total reaches 270, the Constitution is officially
hijacked, our history and legacy dishonored. It is fairly depressing that
voters in those states would be willing to forgo the clout afforded them at our
nation’s birth for some subterfuge born of modern whim.
The bitter irony is that the forces behind this dark
venture are using the engine of state’s rights to propel it. The Constitution
allows states to determine electors in a manner of their choosing. if they
choose this unwise path, they are free to do so.
A Democrat friend of mine predicts a Romney victory
Tuesday, but only in the popular vote. He believes Obama will take the
electoral vote, delivering sweet revenge for what he and other Gore voters had
to swallow twelve years ago.
If that happens, I will be appropriately disheartened.
But if my candidate loses the next six elections in the same way, you will
never hear me lobby for the abolition of the Electoral College.
It is a part of the American fabric. It deserves to be
explained and defended. For a while in my scatterbrained youth, I thought no
more deeply than to say the presidency should go to the candidate with the most
votes.
Much of the current push for change come from the left,
fueled by the prospect of the Democrat votes that tend to spring from large
population centers. But even if there were something about big-city life that
made people vote Republican, I would be unswayed.
An opinion on this issue should not stem from individual
political self-interest. It should flow from an appreciation for how the
presidency was envisioned and established by the nation’s first stewards.
No comments:
Post a Comment