Plainbellied and I had a free date night tonight. We got a babysitter who would watch Her Nibs for service credit at school, and then we went to a lecture at my department (preceded with a reception, where we ate). The speaker was a very distinguished scholar of American history who I have admired for a long time. I had never heard him speak, and it was great to have that chance. Unfortunately, the lecture disappointed me.
One thing in particular troubles me. He said that the electoral college had been instituted by the founding fathers because they did not trust the citizens to make the right choice for President. He used this to argue that the system is antiquated and needs to be removed in favor of a direct presidential election. Well, my own reading of the past conflicts with this view.
I know that the founding fathers did not trust average people to make good decisions. They feared democracy more than almost anything else. However, the electoral college dealt with a different problem. The property requirements for voting made sure only "qualified" people (i.e. rich white men) could influence elections. The electoral college was created to protect the interests of the smaller states (just like the Senate was). If they got rid of the electoral college, candidates could bypass rural states, thus leading to a situation where city-dwellers held political hegemony. Imagine a world in which candidates only campaigned in New York, California, Florida, and Texas. Having the electoral college forces candidates to campaign for each state.
I realize that this system can cause a disparity between the popular and electoral votes (see 1876 and 2000). However, the benefits definitely outweigh the cost. The criticism most often invoked is that many other countries do direct elections. But in most parliamentary systems, people vote for a party (not a candidate), which chooses who will sit in Parliament, and who will be the government. I know that in Spain candidates' names don't even appear on the ballot. How's that for a democracy? You don't even know who you are voting for, even though you're voting "directly." Do you really think it's that much better than an electoral college?
Actually, my favorite reason for having the electoral college is that when your choice for president does something boneheaded, you can honestly say, "I didn't vote for him," because technically you voted for his electors. We're all off the hook now.
Well, I waded into politics again. I promise not to do it again for at least a few days.
2 comments:
I'm with you on this.
We live in a pretty awesome country.
Am grateful for our privileges.
Too bad you didn't get a "question-answer" time.
Lectures and Sermons are good sometimes but other times it just seems like as the audience you have to be passive and nod your head.
There was time for questions, but I didn't feel like asking one. I wish I had, because the first person to ask a question said something nonsensical. The speaker just kind of gave him a blank look and said, "I don't think I understand what you're asking." It was priceless. There should be a MasterCard commercial for that.
I must say that the speaker was quite engaging, and I agree with a lot of what he said. Unfortunately, I've heard others say the same thing about the electoral college, so I thought I'd put in my two cents here.
I still respect him very much as an historian.
Post a Comment