I once had modest luck explaining the function of the electoral college to someone. It was in Michigan, some time back when there was more serious talk about piping Great Lakes water to California to alleviate their plight/malfeasance. So, I used that as an example:
"What if it came down to a vote between California and Michigan, between Calfornians and Michiganders, all other states having no standing to participate in the discussion or having been convinced for the sake of my argument to butt out and let CA and MI hash it out? In a purely popular vote, California wins, by a landslide, every single time."
"Well, their need is dire, real, and immediate. I'm willing to help them."
"They're not voting to ask you for help. They're voting to get all your water. Water rights are complicated but out west they are a high stakes concern, and the guys downstream can really throw their weight around. Just ask the Californians who live upstream. Anyway, the state's population outnumbers ours roughly four to one. You want to talk about your vote not counting? That is what will happen."
His eyes got big. "Um..."
"Yeah. If California votes on matters of Michigan, Michigan will never come out on top, ever. In a simple, pure democracy, California can dictate the affairs of another state just because it has more people to vote on the matter. We have a constitution and a federal government that trumps state governments in cases of conflict expressly for the purpose of preventing one political body from oppressing another just because they have more members. This is one example.
The electoral college is another. California has as many electoral votes as the fifteen smallest states combined, so don't listen to any complaints about individual Californians not having their vote go as far as yours. Half again as many as Texas, almost as many as New York and Florida combined--and note that while Texas is red for now, and Florida is a swing state, New York is solidly blue thanks to NYC and Albany (and tbf Rochester). If you grew up anywhere outside of Detroit, how would you feel about the Detroit city council deciding how your mayor and chief of police were going to handle business in your hometown? If you lived in Detroit, how would you like it it if pinheads in Ann Arbor called the shots for Wayne County? That's what NYC looks like to the Empire State, what Chicago looks like to Illinois, what the Twin Cities look like to Minnesota. The Founders wanted to stop that from happening at the national level, but may have been optimistic about the electorate, or perhaps concluded it was too intrusive to decide for the states whether or what kind of safeguards they might put in place for themselves to keep the same from happening at a smaller scale."
1 comment:
And something I didn't think to address at the original time of posting:
This is not a good argument to go popular vote versus winner-take-all state votes. That simplifying assumption I made about other states not interfering in the fight between MI and CA, see, is not true. Other states would have a say, whether or not they had standing. Lake Michigan also provides water to Illinois and Wisconsin, and contributes to the water supply of Ontario and New York just off the top of my head.
The whole argument was overly simple, as anyone familiar with Great Lakes water usage can tell you. Believe me; I learned more just researching this comment than what I didn't know I didn't know. But this is about the electoral college, not about water rights.
Anyway, California would be up against not just Michigan but at least three other states and one, probably two Canadian provinces; but it would have at its back the whole desert southwest, which would also want some of that sweet sweet water as long as it's there to be had. So just as a back of the envelop guesstimation, if we include states from Idaho and California to Texas, that's 107 electoral votes versus 75 in the three states I mentioned. If we count all the states touching a Great Lake and somehow account for Canada, that might tip the scale the other way, but if we're doing that then we aught to include every semiarid state and any state through which a pipeline or truck or train might carry some of that water, so now we're not just adding Oklahoma but also Montana and Nebraska and Missouri and where does it end?
The point is there are states that wouldn't really have any right to get involved other than they want a piece of the action. If you treat a matter like this as something that everyone in the nation gets a say in, because we're All One Big Happy Family, then the actual stakeholders get outvoted as often as they fail to recruit votes from people on the sidelines who aren't looking out for Number One. There are a few states with that kind of libertarian bent, but not a lot.
And the College is to restrict the people who wrongly think they have a stake, from claiming one just because they get a say.
Post a Comment