I think that Danielle West’s op-ed in the Washington Post has the kernel of a good idea:
Since Donald Trump won the White House without winning the popular vote, cries have risen that the electoral college should be abolished. Millions have signed an online petition urging electors to choose Hillary Clinton despite their states’ vote for Trump. This is a wrongheaded path for dissent. The electoral college shouldn’t be abolished. It enshrines an important principle — protection of the rights of a minority — in our Constitution. A popular majority unhappy with the presidential results should make its weight felt not by taking to the streets but by taking back electoral politics — relearning what it means to win elections for state legislatures, governorships and Congress.
She goes on to advocate a “blue Tea Party movement”. I guess that depends on what she means by “Tea Party”. If she means a left populist movement to put more power in the hands of an elite few, that’ll never fly.
As Woody Allen put it years ago 80% of life is showing up. That means showing up not just at protests or quadrennial elections but for midterms and organizing for better candidates as well. There are news reports that the protesters in the streets didn’t bother themselves to vote and that Colin Kaepernick, the pro football player who created the flap over not standing for the national anthem, isn’t even registered to vote. Protest without bothering to do the basics isn’t just futile, it’s nihilism. If you leave it to the professionals, you’ll get what the professionals deign to give you.
I really don’t understand the lack of voting. I admit I don’t do every off-year or local election, but I haven’t missed a general election since turning 18 though in one election (1996) I didn’t get my ballot in on time because I was deployed.
It’s really not that hard, even if you move every 3-4 years like I’ve done. I don’t get it.
We should reform the electoral college so that votes in the college represent the same number of people. Say 100,000 people equals one electoral college vote. The objection to this is that the electoral college helps protect the rights of a minority, as the writer says. However, they are already protected. The smaller states have disproportionate representation in the House and in the Senate. Letting them have this in the electoral college also tips it from protecting the rights of the minority, to letting the minority dominate over the majority.
Steve
Its purpose is to protect small states from big ones. If your objective is direct democracy, why not abolish the Congress instead? Why not abolish the presidency? The Congress could hire a manager rather than running elections for the presidency.
When the dust has settled it looks as though Hillary Clinton will have carried about 500 of the 3,000 counties in the United States. A tyranny of 500 counties over the rest is just endorsing the world of The Hunger Games. There’s more to democracy than majoritarianism.
Rather than reforming our system to accommodate outcomes what I think is really needed is more tolerance and moderation on everybody’s part. Small-r republican government is impossible without it.
So what has happened? The most immoderate candidate in modern history has been elected to the presidency.