Congressional Redistricting And The Electoral College
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2013-01-28/congressional-redistricting-and-electoral-college
Virginia Governor Bob Mcdonnell has come out against a state senate proposal on the Electoral College. It would have shifted Virginia from a winner take all system to one with votes based on congressional district results. However, another Virginia GOP plan, one to redraw the state’s congressional districts lines is still on the table. It's move that would shore up their party’s strength in the state. Changing district lines to favor the party in power is not a new idea, but in recent years it’s been, for the most part, a Republican tactic. Please join us to talk about what new election rules may mean for election results and our government.
Guests
Rob Richie
executive director, FairVote
Amy Walter
national editor, Cook Political Report
John Farrell
contributing editor, National Journal and author of "Clarence Darrow: Attorney for the Damned" (2011)
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
4) Be careful what you wish for
Which brings us to the law of unintended consequences, which could have a feast on either of these ideas.
Tying presidential elections to the outcome of congressional elections could have the exact opposite result of what its advocates intend. If one party puts up an idiot as a candidate, and the other a saint, instead of a “safe” congressional district saving the former, the opposite could happen. Faced with a choice between electing a member of congress they like and a fool for President, voters might choose to vote for the “other guy” in the congressional race to prevent the fool taking office. (After all, they can always vote back in the member of congress they preferred two years later, when it will have no effect on the presidency.)
That, of course, is what happens in the Parliamentary system. People don’t actually vote for their individual Member of Parliament - they vote for the Party, and in particular for who will be Prime Minister. I doubt that’s what advocates of this system have in mind!
And proportional voting for legislative races (including Congress)? Please. Look at Italy and Israel. They “enjoy” such a system, and the result is neither has ever had a majority government. In the former it’s led to constant instability (to the point where Italy’s governments are something of a European joke). In the latter it’s led to extraordinary power in the hands of minority parties - who are able to extort huge concessions as the price for their support of the Prime Minister. Just imagine what extremist parties could accomplish in this country under such a system!
5) Some different proposals
Which brings me to some ideas I’d like to see “kicked around”.
A) Apportion votes within each State.
We could modify, but not entirely scrap, the current Electoral College system by having the electoral vote in each State apportioned according to the popular vote in that State. This could preserve some of the best elements of the Electoral College (as the Founders intended it), while avoiding the drawbacks I’ve mentioned. Plus, it wouldn’t require a constitutional amendment.
Under this system every State would be in play, and not just select areas of the country or the State. Why? Because the margin of the votes would be critically important. (Unlike in a “winner take all” system, where it really doesn’t matter whether you win a State with 50% + 1 votes, or 99.999999%.) In this system the “spread” within each State would actually decide how many electoral votes a candidate will get. Yes, there will still be “Blue” and “Red” States, but take a good look at the popular votes this time. The margins were exaggerated in the “safe” States, since “the other guy” really didn’t bother campaigning there. Indeed, neither did the “winner”, and for the exact same reason: the outcome was assured, what difference did it make if there was a narrow victory or a landslide in the State? But, if the electoral votes are apportioned according the popular vote in the State, it makes a big difference indeed. Every State then becomes a “battleground” State.
This also avoids the tendency of campaigns only to target certain regions or areas in the State. Even if a “Red” county can’t be “won” by a Democratic candidate (or vice versa), it’s still in each candidate’s interest to insure as many votes are cast for them there as is possible.
TO BE CONTINUED
At the same time, since the apportionment is done State by State, this prevents the situation where (under the FairVote proposal) the national totals determine the outcome. (With that system one might as well jettison the Electoral College altogether, and go with a direct popular vote.) In contrast, this idea preserves the Founders’ desire for State by State selection of the President, while giving the popular vote more weight than the current system does.
B) Voter Quorums
When it comes to our legislatures, a quorum of members must be present for any action to be taken, or laws to be passed. This is usually 50% + 1 of the members of the chamber in question. (For the U.S. Senate, for example, it’s 51 Senators.) Without that quorum, nothing happens.
The same idea should be adopted for our primaries and elections: they will only be valid if a quorum of the qualified voters actually vote. (By “qualified voters” I mean the people legally entitled to vote in the primary or election. In the case of primaries, this would mean registered voters who are members of the party holding the primary.)
TO BE CONTINUED
What happens if the quorum fails to vote? The primary or election is void. There would have to be a “do over” mechanism, say in 2 weeks time, to give those who were too lazy to appear the first time a chance to vote. No quorum the second time? Then for primaries: the party in question has no candidate for the general election; for the election in question: the office is vacant until the election for the next term. (That may seem a little harsh, but I see no reason not to adopt a “use it or lose it” rule for our right to representative government. If the majority of voters in a jurisdiction can’t be bothered to vote, they shouldn’t object if the government goes forward without them! Think of it as an application of the principle: If you don’t vote, don’t squawk.)
This would hopefully eliminate, or at least ameliorate, one of the big problems in politics today: the fact that in “safe” districts only the most extreme members of the “favored” party count, because they’re the ones who bother to vote. One term of a Democratic officeholder in a “Red” district, winning by default because of a low primary turnout (or vice versa), should convince the “moderates” in the “Red” party to vote in the next primary (etc.). It will also encourage both parties to “get out the vote”, since the price of failure is the voiding of the primary/election.
C) The “P-Chip”
One big drawback to all this is that it will encourage, almost mandate, campaign advertising everywhere. Speaking as a resident of a “Red” State (Arizona), I greatly appreciated the fact that little or no presidential ads were run here. After all, why should either party bother (or waste it’s resources)? Arizona was going to vote for Romney no matter what. But if these proposals were adopted, the blessed relief we enjoyed would be a thing of the past.
TO BE CONTINUED
The solution is to borrow an idea already in place. Modern T.V.’s come equipped with a V-Chip, which allows the viewers (not the government) to “censor” content they don’t like. Violence? Sex? Strong Language? Each of us has the power to make our programming as “GP” as one could wish.
Well, then, why not a “P-Chip”, for both T.V. and Radio? It would allow us to completely block campaign ads (even when being shown on “news” shows). As an added benefit, it might do something about the obscene influence money has in our politics. After all, no one is going to pay (or contribute) billions to produce campaign ads no one ever sees or hears! Two birds killed (or at least wounded) with one chip.
Conclusion
Like I said, these are just some thoughts and ideas I’m “kicking around”. While it’s a little late to be posting this (I was busy yesterday and only heard the program today), I hope people will see this and give it some thought - not just to discuss here, but everywhere.
Sam T. on January 28, 2013 @ 9:48 am wrote: “We are a Republic, not a democracy. . . .”
My, you parrot Republi-Con talking points very well. But that’s all it is: the spewing of empty words and phrases by someone who has no idea what it means.
The term “democracy” includes a republic. The true contrast is with monarchical systems of government, where the “governed” have no say. And there is nothing about “republics” that guarantees “the inalienable right of individuals”. Ancient Rome was a republic, Venice (before the founding of the nation of Italy) was a republic, heck the official name of East Germany was the German Democratic Republic. None of those places demonstrated any respect for individual rights.
Our guarantees come from the fact that we have a Constitution, and that is not exclusive to republics. (Britain is a constitutional monarchy.)
So, if you want an accurate description of our system of government, we are a constitutional democracy in the form of a republic.
As for “the public good”, here’s what one of the Founders wrote (in support of the Constitution):
. . . the public good, the real welfare of the great body of the people, is the supreme object to be pursued; and . . . no form of government whatever has any other value than as it may be fitted for the attainment of this object.
Source: James Madison, The Federalist Papers, Number 45.
I suggest you read that book, instead of Republi-Con propaganda.
Sam T. on January 28, 2013 @ 9:48 am wrote: “The Founders of our nation held a deep abhorrence for democracy and majority rule. In Federalist Paper No. 10, James Madison wrote, ‘Measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.”
Of course, even The Federalist Papers are of little use when the person quoting them does so out-of-context, selectively choosing portions and distorting what’s being said, to change the meaning of the author’s words. The sentence you only partially quoted from (without indicating that you began in the middle) was part of a discussion of the dangers of factions, what today we would call political parties. Here’s the full sentence (with the part you omitted emphasized):
Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, the public good[*] is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.
* (Oh my, there’s that phrase “public good” again!)
Gee, that doesn’t sound like a denunciation of democracy per se at all, simply recognition of the dangerous effects of factions. (What today we might call partisanship). This view is reinforced by what Madison goes on to say in the very next paragraph:
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
By a faction I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.
Gosh, Madison is denouncing not only a tyranny of the majority, but also tyranny by the minority. And in both cases he accuses them of being adverse to the aggregate interests of the community. Madison is talking like a “communitarian”. (And we all know that’s just one step removed from being a Communist!)
But, Madison recognized that republics are not immune to the corrupting influence of factions, whether of a majority or a minority. While, hopefully, representatives will be chosen who demonstrate wisdom, patriotism, and love of justice, he recognized that the opposite can take place.
Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages [i.e.: win the election], and then betray the interests of the people.[*]
* (Oh dear, there he goes again, talking about “the people” collectively, instead of as individuals.)
TO BE CONTINUED
PART THREE
The fact of the matter is that Madison decided the only remedy against factionalism was not by trying to eliminate it (which he deemed impossible), but rather by encouraging a multitude of factions, thus diluting the power of any one group, and forcing compromise. And, given the size of the territory that comprised the U.S. even back then, a representative form of “popular government” (a phrase he uses constantly) would better serve that purpose than a “pure” democracy (the actual term he uses to distinguish the generic meaning of that word from the specific and narrower one you are employing). In short, there’s nothing magical about “republics” that guarantee freedom. It’s making sure enough different interests are represented that’s the key, and that means making sure the democratic franchise, the right to vote, is spread as widely as possible.
P.S. - Funny, though, how Republi-Cons embrace direct democracy when it suits their purpose. Consider all the referendums they promote to ban abortion, gay marriage, and anything else they disapprove of. And consider as well that those measures are usually passed by a minority of the actual registered voters. (If many of them were subject to the voting quorum requirement I discuss elsewhere, they’d probably be void.)
P.P.S. - Since you neglected to give a source for that alleged Adams quote, I have no way to determine its accuracy or context. Therefore I won't address it.
Stop arguing about which party benefits. Country before party. Move away from party politics and give the power to the people.
ES wrote:
"Today the electors are supposed to vote in accordance with the popular will of their State, and not substitute their judgment for that of the voters. "
In today's world eliminating the electors of the Electoral College probably makes sense.
"We could modify, but not entirely scrap, the current Electoral College system by having the electoral vote in each State apportioned according to the popular vote in that State. This could preserve some of the best elements of the Electoral College (as the Founders intended it), while avoiding the drawbacks I’ve mentioned. Plus, it wouldn’t require a constitutional amendment."
If you think changing assignment of electoral votes to apportionment across the states would not require a Constitutional Amendment, you're kidding yourself. Today, two states already do that; Maine and Nebraska. This is a STATE issue. So unless you get all 50 states to go along, a Federal Constitutional Amendment would clearly be required. Now there are some that would profoundly disagree with the whole idea - like this headline ... you can Google the article: The GOP Plan to Take the Electoral-Vote-Rigging Scheme National.
Now, as to your attack on Sam T. for juxtaposing "democracy" with "republic", as opposed to "constitutional democracy in the form of a republic", I would claim "nit-picking" based on the MW definition "government by the people; especially : rule of the majority", which is the sense that Sam T. conveyed with the parenthetical "mob rule". That last part makes it pretty clear what was intended.
The Adams quote isn't hard to find - I found it in about 5 seconds with this thing called Google. Google "John Adams letter to John Taylor April 15, 1814" and take the first link. Further, John Marshall said, "Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos". It seems that both Adams and Marshall were pretty clear on the distinction. Here's a good article on it, the gist of which, based on your other posts on this topic, I think you will agree.
http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=5015
As for the "disenfranchisement via quorum" idea? Ridiculous. The people already are punished for not voting - they have no say in their government. That's punishment enough. And, the failure of a state, for example to reach a quorum of voters, not only punishes the stay-at-homers, but punishes the went-out-in-the-snow-and-cold-to-vote people too! But I do like the idea of a P-chip. I'd pay extra for it.
As for your resurrection of the term "Republi-Con", which until recently, you eschewed, strudel, it continues to be as offensive to some, as are other terms used here about which you complain, which, up until now, had also been absent of late.
Oh ... and P.S.... referendums do not have the force of law.