Electoral College: an Obstacle to Civic Engagement
The U.S.
electoral college has become a hot issue among Democratic presidential
candidates, with punditry supporting or mocking the proposals to abolish or
modify it. Commentary typically focuses
on conceptual arguments about the historical development of the Constitution
(e.g., the electoral college was a concession to slave states) and analyses
about the leveling effects of the college (e.g., balancing the powers of large
and small states, urban and rural; “cooling the passions” of the majority). Voters going to the polls and activists
working for candidates, however, have more immediate and practical
concerns.
We face a
momentous election in 2020. Donald Trump
holds approval ratings (42-43%) that suggest deep trouble for him, yet
oddsmakers give him at least an even chance of re-election . . . with an
electoral college victory and an even greater loss in the popular vote. Here is the dilemma if you are a voter in a
so-called non-battleground state like New York (this generally describes at
least 40 states). If New Yorkers in
November, 2020 almost surely vote overwhelmingly for the Democratic
presidential candidate, with its electoral votes aligning accordingly, how
urgently is their vote needed? A
national popular vote will not determine the winner. If household tasks, family issues, or work
demands seem overwhelming on that November 3rd, why not skip the burdens of
citizenry, deal with personal pressures, and spend the evening watching the
returns from Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, etc., where the real action
is?
Democratic
activists face even more daunting decisions.
They have been doing the difficult groundwork of organizing their
districts since early 2017. They scored
significant successes in 2018, helping to elect a big majority in the
House. But how do they plan for the
general election in 2020? New York
borders Pennsylvania, and Ohio and Michigan aren’t that far away. Should those
New York activists book their motel reservations now—pick their state--for the
two weeks starting in late October, 2020, in the all-out effort to defeat
Trump? Join the Democratic candidate’s
national campaign? But if they do, they
will be draining the campaigns of their newly elected local Democratic
representatives of vital resources for getting out the vote: an army of door knockers, callers, texters,
drivers. And worse, with their absence
might they compound a dropoff of Democratic voters discouraged by their
seemingly meaningless vote? Earn a White
House victory but lose the House and Senate?
These
activists—and voters—face a Sophie’s choice that will be replicated in roughly
80% of American states. Wouldn’t all of
us be more meaningfully engaged in the democratic process if our election
battles were fought on our home grounds, where votes for local and national
candidates were equally important? For
the 2020 election the energy to challenge and eliminate the electoral college
is coming from the Democratic side. But if
that anachronistic election process persists, Republicans can be sure to face
the same vexing obstacles sometime in the future. A fair solution would be to eliminate the
electoral college through a constitutional amendment and select a president
with the popular vote, the system taking effect ten to twenty years after it is
made law. Democrats and Republicans
would be equally challenged to respond to a changing political landscape. Americans would welcome elections that were
more democratic and fair and that respected their civic engagement.
Publishing history:
Shawangunk
Journal 4/25
New
Paltz Times 5/9
No comments:
Post a Comment