#25
Post
by nitrah55 » Tue Nov 04, 2008 11:29 am
I agree with BiT, but I have a different reason for supporting the EC- although the reminder that this is an election by the states is a good one.
In countries that have a parliamentary system, like the UK, one party has to be in power. They do this either by getting members of their party elected to a majority of the seats in parliament, or by forming a coalition with smaller parties.
The party in power either has to appeal to a majority of the electorate, or they have to accomodate the minority party to form a coalition. The system has built in the assumption that the ruling party has to accomodate the will of the people, either by getting voted in or by coming to agreements with parties that a substantial number of the people have voted for. As a practical matter, it requires any party who wants to be in power to compromise- either in its own platform or subsequently, with a partner in the coalition. This keeps extreme views from coming to power, and the country is governed, more or less, from the center. (I realize this doesn't happen all the time, every time, but that's the way it tends.)
In the US, we don't have a parliamentary system. Legislators are elected by district or state, and the legislators represent (or should) their local interests, one would hope with an enlightened respect for the national interest. But they are, up and down elected locally, so it is all the more important that the executive represent the will of the country as much as possible.
Which is why it would be bad for the US to have a president who only represented one segment of the population. And, I'm not talking just geographic. Would it be possible for someone to be elected who was only looking out for the interests of the urban population, or just the rural population? Or maybe manufacturing interests or high tech or agriculture?
If we had popular election of the president, it is possible someone could run on a platform and say, "We are only looking out for the cities. If you live in a city, vote for me," and win. Or appeal to some other large group or group to the exclusion of other economic or demographic group.
Such a narrow appeal is much harder in the Electoral College system. A candidate has to win different states- some rural, some urban, for instance. And, even more important, a candidate must win states that have different demographic groups within them. A naked appeal to one interest group will not work in many states, and in the EC system, you don't win a state, you don't win the election.
The EC system, for all its faults, forces the candidates to develop their appeal to a wide range of people- that is, represent the American people as a whole, as much as they can. A popular vote system would not do that to the extent that the EC system does.
I live in NY, and my vote for president is proportionately about 1/3 as significant as that of someone in Wyoming. But I still think the Electoral College is a good idea.
This went long. My apologies.
I am about 25% sure of this.
