Welcome to the first edition of Refuting the Opposition: why actually take a stand on an issue when you can just prove why other people are wrong instead? Today, we'll delve further into my favorite thing to get worked up about: the Electoral College! Large chunks of this post have been taken straight from an argumentation essay I wrote for my A.P. English Language class this year, so that's why it sounds professional and somewhat organized. Each paragraph will begin with an argument in favor of the Electoral College in italics and then I will proceed to refute the heck out of it and it'll be really fun. For me. And maybe for you.
“The Electoral College provides clear winners in tight races." This argument in favor of the Electoral College is backed up by the 2012 election and to a greater degree the 1980 election where Reagan barely won the popular vote (50.7%) but dominated in the electoral vote. But on the other hand, when the Electoral College doesn't work things get messy real fast. It is a fair assertion, however, that a popular vote system could drag out the election process - if we’re not careful. There would have to be clear rules concerning recounts and more importantly the initial tallying of votes, perhaps a nationally standardized vote-counting procedure to eliminate doubt.
"The electoral system forces candidates to address rural issues because of swing states such as Iowa and Colorado. With a pure popular vote, a candidate could easily win with only urban and suburban support, ignoring the important interests of farmers to the American economy." But these states would still have influence in Congress that is disproportionate to the small size of their population. Their issues are important, and they will not be ignored past the campaigning phase, if they will even be ignored at all. A president can do little without the support of Congress, which is made up of many representatives from rural states who will keep the interests of farmers on stage. A popular vote would allow the majority of Americans to have a voice more powerful than majorities in separate states.
"The Electoral College maintains Constitutional balances by requiring candidates to win majorities of the popular vote in individual states, while simultaneously requiring at least 270 votes nationwide.” But which majority trumps which? Why are states more important than the majority of Americans? A pure popular vote would actually further divide the power of the electorate, allowing a majority different from the one that elects Congress to elect the president. The Electoral College divides the country into red states and blue states, and politicians often use these phrases demeaningly, as if it says something about the moral character of the people living in these states. When the Constitution was written, loyalty lied undoubtedly with the states over the country, as shown by America’s first government, the extremely decentralized nation outlined by the Articles of Confederation. Today this has changed; citizens identify with America more than with individual states. The Electoral College is the most prominent source of division among states that remains. A popular vote would better portray America’s diverse political ideology instead of the false view that the people within each state all have the same views.
"The Maine and Nebraska alternative would be better than a pure popular vote." These states assign one vote to the winner of each Congressional district and the remaining two votes to the winner of the popular vote within the state. This goes against the traditional winner-take-all process and many Republicans currently support it - because Romney would have won by a landslide if electoral votes had been assigned by district. This system should not be adopted in every state. Maine and Nebraska are solid blue and red states respectively, so there’s little controversy and the votes don’t split between candidates. But in swing-states such as Ohio and Florida there would be a whole new level of gerrymandering with higher stakes: the presidency. Additionally, elections would be close not only in the popular vote, but also in the electoral vote, probably leading to more re-counts. If this was the national system, it’d make just as much sense to let Congress elect the president, since the two parties would be split up by district accordingly. This process would also create a few all-important swing districts, putting the power to decide the president in the hands of even fewer voters.
"A popular vote will lead to candidates pandering to large urban centers." True, but at least that’s a larger and more variable block of America than the current focus of pandering: the elusive undecided voter in Ohio.
Well, that's it for today's Refuting the Opposition. Join me next time when I explain why someone else is wrong.
No comments:
Post a Comment