Liberal Democracy in a Federal System
It’s one of those bad ideas that just won’t go away. Advocates for electing presidents by direct popular vote know they can’t get it through the constitutional amendment process so they have come up with a scheme to circumvent that process. Former Senator Birch Bayh of Indiana and Independent presidential candidate John Anderson of Illinois are proposing the most populous states agree among themselves they will cast their electoral votes for whichever candidate wins the most votes nationally, without regard to how their own state voted. The sponsors call themselves majoritarians. In reality only a plurality is required. There is no provision for a runoff. Incredibly they appear to be attracting wide support. The proposal has been endorsed by the New York Times and New Yorker magazine among others. A number of state legislatures have reportedly expressed interest. As few as eleven large states with more than 270 electoral votes among them could at a stroke undo the Great Compromise, one of the most fundamental agreements in the founding of the republic. The remaining 39 states would have no say in the matter.
First a little history; at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 delegates were at an impasse. The question was just how much sovereignty each of the newly independent states would cede to a national government, and how the powers they were to retain were to be protected. In the old Continental Congress each former colony had a single vote, much as in the UN General Assembly of today. The more populous states were not about to tolerate such an arrangement in a new federation but if there was to be a union the smaller states would not allow their views to be easily overridden. The compromise was the bicameral congress and it included provisions for how the presiding officer would be selected. Each legislature would appoint a number of electors corresponding to their representation in the congress. Since each state has the same number of senators this means the population of Nevada is given slightly more weight than the equivalent population in California. This is an exception to the one man one vote principle but then so is the composition of the senate. Without it there would be no United States. The proposition that eleven states should arbitrarily undo that agreement is unconscionable.
I’m obviously not in favor of such a power grab. I am a believer in representative liberal democracy as opposed to direct majority rule. That means among other things that the power of the majority should be strictly limited. The rights of minorities are protected and that includes the right of minority states to a disproportionate voice in presidential elections. It also means however that when the majority makes its wishes known through the vote, elected officials ignore them at their peril. The thought that electors from Texas might brush aside the vote in their own state in favor of a national plurality is one I find abhorrent.
The New York Times has described the Electoral College as an “antidemocratic relic.” To replace it they propose a process that is at once profoundly undemocratic and unprincipled. Narrow majorities in a few states would dictate to the nation how its chief executive is to be chosen. This is wrong. If Pennsylvania wishes to surrender more of its authority to a national electorate it should not be allowed to do it at the expense of the other states without their acquiescence. Under the terms of the constitution there are several ways to obtain the requisite approval. This isn’t one of them.
First a little history; at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 delegates were at an impasse. The question was just how much sovereignty each of the newly independent states would cede to a national government, and how the powers they were to retain were to be protected. In the old Continental Congress each former colony had a single vote, much as in the UN General Assembly of today. The more populous states were not about to tolerate such an arrangement in a new federation but if there was to be a union the smaller states would not allow their views to be easily overridden. The compromise was the bicameral congress and it included provisions for how the presiding officer would be selected. Each legislature would appoint a number of electors corresponding to their representation in the congress. Since each state has the same number of senators this means the population of Nevada is given slightly more weight than the equivalent population in California. This is an exception to the one man one vote principle but then so is the composition of the senate. Without it there would be no United States. The proposition that eleven states should arbitrarily undo that agreement is unconscionable.
I’m obviously not in favor of such a power grab. I am a believer in representative liberal democracy as opposed to direct majority rule. That means among other things that the power of the majority should be strictly limited. The rights of minorities are protected and that includes the right of minority states to a disproportionate voice in presidential elections. It also means however that when the majority makes its wishes known through the vote, elected officials ignore them at their peril. The thought that electors from Texas might brush aside the vote in their own state in favor of a national plurality is one I find abhorrent.
The New York Times has described the Electoral College as an “antidemocratic relic.” To replace it they propose a process that is at once profoundly undemocratic and unprincipled. Narrow majorities in a few states would dictate to the nation how its chief executive is to be chosen. This is wrong. If Pennsylvania wishes to surrender more of its authority to a national electorate it should not be allowed to do it at the expense of the other states without their acquiescence. Under the terms of the constitution there are several ways to obtain the requisite approval. This isn’t one of them.
posted by Onfoot at 10:24 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home