The American presidential election is notoriously complex, not least because of the so-called Electoral College system, which lets states appoint a number of electors equal to their total Congressional representation (as well as giving DC three electors even though it is not a state and has only a single delegate to Congress, according to the 23rd Amendment). The way this system is implemented in practice is that states hold direct elections with the Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates listed on the same ticket, which actually elects the party slate of electors. Although there are a couple of states (ME and NB) that use proportional systems, they are rarely significant. Generally the effect of the current system is to slightly exaggerate the power of small states, weaken minorities within states and third party candidates, and to make “swing states” (states that might vote for either candidate) extremely influential—but only if they use winner take all rules. However, the unintended consequences of this system are even stranger.
1. Electoral College never really convenes. Electors meet in their own state capitals to vote (12th Amendment). After they mail in their ballots, they are disbanded. Electors from different states never meet in one place for any purpose.
2. States have an incentive to under represent minorities. States that use fairer apportionment systems not only dilute their preferences, they make it less likely that candidates will attempt to appeal to their voters.
3. The Vice President has conflict of interest. As Senate President he receives and reads the ballots for both President and VP, and he presides over the special session of Congress that decides whether to question the results. However, he is usually a candidate for either President or Vice President. The only reason it is not a conflict to read his own victory or defeat is because of the meaninglessness of this role; everyone already knows the electoral result.
4. It over represents small states in a runoff, because presidential runoffs are conducted by the House, but voting by states, not by members. This overrepresentation is much stronger the one inherent in the Electoral College.
5. DC can participate in the general but not runoff election, as it does not have any voting Congressional representation.
6. Outgoing, not incoming, Congress decides election, which means that at the end of the president’s term his party may not have won an election for six years.
7. President and VP still not guaranteed to be from the same party, which was one thing the 12th Amendment tried to prevent.
All these factors make strategic voting more complex. When deciding whether to vote for a third party, one must consider how the candidates are doing in that particular state, not in the country as a whole. Generally, third parties have extremely diluted support and stand no more chance in any one state. However, if a third candidate polls above one of the major parties within a state it might make sense to vote for that candidate. In that case, the candidate would probably do best to ask his or her electors to vote for one of the major party candidates and possibly influence the election that way. However, a candidate might wish to send the election to the House. This would only make sense if he or she had Congressional allies concentrated in several states.
The possibilities for reform are therefore limited. One plan is the Interstate Popular Voting Compact, in which states would promise to give their electoral votes to the plurality winner in the popular vote. This plan would prevent elections from ever going into runoff (except in the case of an exact tie in the popular vote), ensure the person with the most votes wins, and would be about all the states could do without a constitutional amendment. A constitutional amendment could force states to apportion their electoral votes, however it would be very difficult to get passed, and would destroy any hopes of the Popular Voting Compact or any similar arrangement.
Another possible change would be to have the electors meet together and vote in multiple rounds for both president and vice president. This way, third place candidates could drop out and endorse others, possibly agreeing to vote for the other candidate as VP, allowing a sort of coalition. Also, this amendment could change the wording from "such manner as the legislature shall direct" to "such manner as the laws shall direct," which would clear up some confusion of the type that occurred after the 2000 election. This arrangement, which would be a definite improvement, would also require a constitutional amendment and would be little more than a plug until a better reform could be put in place. It seems unlikely that an amendment would be ratified faster than a compact.
All in all, I think the best bet would be to enact the compact in short term and move to instant runoff voting later in order to correct the problems inherent with a plurality voting system.
No comments:
Post a Comment