In Defense of Anti-democracy

Having merited mention on Bluejersey.com for some commentary respecting the electoral college/direct election of the President, I feel compelled to offer a few thoughts.

There exists a certain facial appeal to the suggestion that the candidate who secures the most popular votes ought to be elected President. The electoral college embodies certain anti-democratic elements, such that a candidate, wildly popular in certain states, but relatively unpopular in others, can find himself winning the popular vote, but nonetheless losing the election.

And, given modern electoral techniques, only a few states – swing states – merit much in the way of campaigns. A Republican would be a fool to waste a lot of time in California or New York; the people are essentially beyond hope. Just so, a Democrat would be nuts to spend much time in (say) Texas. The people there tend to reject Hillary-style "we’re-all-in-together-and-you’re-gonna-pay-for-it-whether-you-like-it-or-not" programs. States like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida, which might break either way – thereby deciding the election – understandably attract the most attention.

The BlueGuys lament this fact, averring that campaigns might be more democratic – or, at least, more diffuse -- if the election were strictly based upon the popular vote count. But such is not necessarily true. Candidates would simply concentrate their efforts on their base – geographic or ideological – attempting to turn out as many of their people as possible. Democrats would, instead of campaigning hard in "swing", but relatively small, states, would direct their attention to their urban, coastal base. Republicans, contrariwise, would direct their attention to their suburban/rural, culturally conservative base. What would change?

For those living in the tristate area, we might see quite a few more Hillary/Obama commercials, but the Republicans would probably continue to ignore the area; it’s not worth the effort when the region is beset by people who read The New York Times editorial section for other than comic relief. There would still be no "national" campaign; at best, the focus of the candidates’ attention might be somewhat diverted.

Anti-democratic tools are not inherently evil. Indeed, our system fairly bursts at the seams with them. Consider, for instance, the Mother of all anti-democratic institutions: the Judiciary. Judicial supremacy is not a given. Indeed, in England, Parliament is supreme. How does permitting a committee of ancient lawyers to make important decisions square with democracy? For instance, should not the voters of Massachusetts (or NJ) been given the opportunity to vote on whether the State would permit gay marriage? If one believes in direct democracy, why not on issues such as that as well?

And unless one accepts that New Jersey should enjoy precisely the same representation in the Senate as does California on the one hand or Wyoming on the other, one is a confirmed anti-democrat. Indeed, districts themselves produce anti-democratic results. In the last legislative election, Republican legislative candidates received more votes statewide than did their Democratic counterparts, but the Dems won a 49-31 majority. Over the years prior to 1994, Republicans routinely earned more congressional votes nationally than did the Dems, yet the latter retained consistent Congressional majorities.

Query, then: why the concern about a "minority" president, but no similar concern about numerous "minority" legislators? Why, essentially, abolish the states for the purpose of electing the President, but retain them for the purpose of electing Congressional representatives? After all, NJ Republicans utterly lack representation in the US Senate; would not a parliamentary system be "fairer", encouraging folks whose own states might be beyond redemption – as in NJ – to cast meaningful votes for his/her party, ensuring that every vote actually helps elect candidates in proportion to the national percentage of the vote? Or effect the same system for the NJ Legislature?

Well, no. Districts serve a useful purpose. Normally, the folks who represent them reside therein and understand their unique concerns. States, too, exist for a purpose, and the political culture differs markedly, even between adjacent states. We broke away from England for a reason.

The president should have broad appeal, across the nation, not just in a few populace states. Just as Montana receives – as a state – the same number of Senators as California, so, too, it deserves to have its interests considered in the race for President. If its voters get somewhat disproportionate weight in Presidential elections – and in the Senate – such is precisely the result the Framers intended. They did not want the parochial concerns of the big states to permit them to dominate the new nation. That concern prevails today, in spades.

Consider also the practical difficulties associated with a close national election. The electoral college tends to overstate the margins of the winners, thereby negating bruising, post electoral court battles. Imagine if EVERY district in the nation were akin to Broward County in 2000. Under the present system, it’s generally not worth the time and effort to litigate every possible disputed vote in every single district. Nor is it necessary. But imagine the rule by lawyers – and judges – if EVERY precinct throughout the country were held to Morris Township standards. (Where each and every vote became the subject of judicial scrutiny). In a close national election, EVERY single precinct in the nation might end up in Court. We might be years determining a – judicially approved – winner.

If you think Bush v. Gore problematic, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

Now, a national popular vote might produce some salutary results, such as strong voter ID laws to prevent cheating. (Although not widespread, in a close election, even a few fraudulently cast ballots make a considerable difference). It’s unlikely to increase turnout; folks who don’t vote for President today likely wouldn’t in any case. And it won’t produce less focused campaigns; at most, it would change the focus.

Direct popular election of the President is most certainly not fundamentally offensive. But for those who believe it to be a panacea, think again. For every "solution", three more problems arise. Put another way, the system is not, self-evidently broken. We should not lightly disregard the Framers’ design, as it’s worked pretty well over the course of 216 years or so.