|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jens 'n' Frens
Idle thoughts of a relatively libertarian Republican in Cambridge, MA, and whomever he invites. Mostly political.
"A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures."
-- Daniel Webster
|
|
|
|
|
|
Friday, June 18, 2004 :::
Seeing as how my opinions on the Electoral College have been fairly well predicted, I will make only two short remarks on the matter:
I don't like the application of the word "defect" to the fact that the Electoral College gives a greater weight to the votes of rural states. I suppose that "defect" is correct, within its dictionary meaning, but it is hard for me to think of this as a "defect" considering that it was part of the original purpose for having an Electoral College.
Dean accurately surmises that my preference for first-past-the-post elections, which tend to produce stable, two-party systems where sectionalism is not rampant, extends to the Electoral College. However, while I must admit that there are benefits to multiparty representation in most legislative bodies, I just don't see it for the Electoral College. The College is a body that meets only once in between elections and votes only twice at that time. Leaving aside the fact that the separate voting in each state would tend to hinder negotiation, the most likely outcome of a minor party holding the balance of power would be the trading of the Vice Presidency to the minor party, or another major party, or the selection of a President from the plurality party who was not the favored choice of the plurality party and therefore probably not one of the people the voters thought that they were voting for on Election Day. A more likely outcome would be throwing the election to our gerrymandered House of Representatives (under the rule, mind you, that each state delegation votes together) and our filibustering Senate. I don't see how the average voter, the federal government, or the Republic in general would benefit from this.
::: posted by Eric at 7:50 PM
|
|
|
|
