By David Harsanyi
Monday, November 14, 2016
This week, anti-Trump protesters hit the streets in big
cities around the country, chanting “This is what democracy looks like!” Yes.
That’s the problem.
For many Democrats, the greatest political system is the
one that instills their party with the most power. Now that it looks like
Hillary Clinton will “win” the fictional popular vote over Donald Trump, people
— not just young people who’ve spent their entire lives being told America is a
democracy, but people who know better — are getting hysterical about the
Electoral College. Not only is it “unfair” and “undemocratic,” but like
anything else progressives dislike these days, it’s a tool of “White Supremacy—and
Sexism.”
If liberals truly believe majoritarianism is the fairest
way to run a government, then why shouldn’t 50 percent of states be able to
repeal constitutional amendments? (Democrats only run only 13 state
legislatures. But, you know, when it’s convenient.) Why should a bunch of white
men from the late eighteenth century have any say in how contemporary Americans
live? If proportional government is unfair, why do we even have two senators
from each state? Why not 20 from California and one from Wyoming? Why have
states at all? Maybe we should have a series of referendums instead of relying
on Congress.
Maybe we should let protesters overturn elections?
Granted, because of our childish propensity to use the
word “fair,” I understand that the Electoral College must seem like a relic
that undercuts the sacramental notion of “one man, one vote.” As if a losing
vote ever counts anyway. But if you still generally believe the Founders did a
decent job setting up the conditions for material prosperity and individual
freedom to guarantee a stable government and dispersed political power, you
should be a big fan of the Electoral College.
If it needs repeating, in the United STATES of America,
we have an Electoral College, wherein the president and vice president aren’t
elected directly by the voters, but rather by electors who are chosen through
the popular votes from each state. Your state’s portion of electors equals the
number of members in its congressional delegation: one for each member in the
House of Representatives plus two for your senators. We have 51 separate
elections. This is done so that every part of the nation has some kind of say
over the next executive. The president, after all, is not a monarch. He does
not make laws. Not even Barack Obama was supposed to do that. Voters need to
view the system as a whole to understand why this is “fair.”
Diffused democracy weakens the ability of politicians to
scaremonger and use emotional appeals to take power. It blunts the vagaries of
the electorate. So, naturally, the Left has been attacking the Electoral
College for years — including talk of a national “compact” to circumvent
smaller states. A few years ago, Alexander Keyssar, a professor of history and
social policy at Harvard’s Kennedy School, penned an article in The New York Times about revising the
Constitution:
If we were writing or revising the
constitution now, we would almost certainly adopt a rather simple method of
choosing our presidents: a national popular vote, followed by a run-off if no
candidate wins a majority. We applaud when we witness such systems operating
elsewhere in the world.
Perhaps we should try one here.
We do? We should? Why on earth would we do that? Which
parliamentary setup is more stable than our form of governance? What free
nation in the world has as consistently and peacefully been able to turn power
from one political party to the next the way we have in the past 100 years?
That, of course, is the point. Need it be repeated, the
Electoral College, and other mechanisms that balance democracy, create
moderation and compromise—or, stop one party from accumulating too much power.
It is certainly possible that Obama’s unilateral governance over the past eight
years had a lot to do with the pushback of three consecutive losses in the
Senate and Congress and the election of Donald Trump.
To some extent, the Electoral College impels presidents
and their political parties to consider all Americans in rhetoric and action.
By allowing Wyoming, with a population of less than 600,000, and California,
with a population of more than 38 million people, both have two senators, we
create more national cohesion. We protect large swaths of the nation from being
bullied. We incentivize Washington—both the president and the Senate—to craft
policy that meets the needs of Colorado as well as New York.
Moreover, besides protecting the rights of Americans who
reside in those states, it should also remind us that smaller states have
industries and functions that outweigh a measurement in population alone—the
agriculture sector of a state, for instance. In a world with increasing
productivity, this matters more than ever. Smaller states are laboratories for
ideas, as are big ones. If they become marginalized, then coerced to embrace the
policies favored by the people in urban areas, the nation loses valuable
resourcefulness, imagination, and brainpower.
It’s also worth remembering that the dynamics of this
election would be completely different if the popular vote actually mattered. The
election is geared to winning states, not people. There is no guarantee that
Hillary Clinton would have won. There are tons of conservatives in blue states,
for instance, who do not vote because they understand that the majority around
them have a different political outlook. A direct national election would mean
focusing on blue-state Republicans and red-state liberals. I’m not sure that
setup works out for Democrats exactly as they imagine.
It’s true that Americans don’t like the Electoral
College. This, considering its purpose, is educationally irrelevant. Gallup has
been gauging American sentiments on the Electoral College from different angles
over the years. But no matter how pollsters phrase the question, impressive
majorities always want to trash this unique buttress against direct democracy —
and, since the question was first asked in 1966, it’s become increasingly
unpopular.
My empirical experience tells me that public schools
teach kids about American governance in a way that diminishes the importance of
diffused democracy. They sure do spend precious little time on civics.
Now, some of this handwringing is a function of distraught
voters trying to figure out ways to delegitimize Trump. Some of it is a
function of “democracy” being misunderstood. How about tyranny of the minority,
you ask? Good question. Let’s give power back to the states and stop treating
the executive branch as if were a law-making branch of government. Washington
was never intended to hold this much power over states. And presidents were
never meant to be this important.
No comments:
Post a Comment