|
Consider the presidential election system we have today: Every
state has a number of electors, equal to their amount of
representatives and senators, who vote for the President of the
United States. In most states, every elector goes to the
candidate who achieves the most popular votes, regardless of his
margin of victory. This means:
1. Presidential candidates have little reason to campaign to the
whole country. If partisan or personal loyalty makes victory
certain in a state, a candidate can safely ignore it in favor of
other states. Conversely, if a candidate will definitely lose in
a state, then he won't waste his time there. Only competitive
"battleground states" see much activity.
2. We have less national turnout. If a state will assuredly
support one candidate, why bother voting? Also, lack of vigorous
campaigning in a state might contribute to voter apathy during
an election.
3. With the winner-take-all plurality system, candidates try to
attract moderate voters, so to avoid turning people off, they
emphasize their personalities more than their policies. This
results in bland, visionless candidates who take those traits
into the White House.
I believe a new presidential electoral system is in order. We
need something that rewards candidates who have bold ideas,
while drawing more voters into the process as well.
Therefore, I recommend we emulate the French.
Hear me out! The French have an excellent method by which to
elect their president. It is a two-stage electoral process. In
the first part, candidates from all the country's parties can
run. Candidates who mobilize partisans with daring policy
agendas will perform best here. Afterwards, during the second
stage runoff, the first and second place finishers of the first
round compete. Whoever achieves a majority vote wins. This
requires the candidates to make themselves as palatable toward
the center as possible.
Eliminating the Electoral College and implementing two-round
direct popular vote elections here would deliver many benefits.
It would reward courageous candidates with striking ideas in the
first stage, but it would weed out dangerous fanatics in the
second stage. It would allow smaller parties to achieve greater
prominence than they could achieve in a winner-take-all elector
paradigm. It would give candidates reason to campaign to every
American. And it would give each voter a larger role in
determining the outcome of the election.
As a German friend also pointed out to me, "I don't quite get it
that in the US, votes for the Greens i.e. are all lost, even
help a candidate from the right to get into office (see 2000) --
a second turn of the elections would allow Green supporters to
vote for the Democrat." This is an important point. The major
parties would have to give adherents of smaller parties reasons
to vote for them. This would force the Democrats and Republicans
to take other parties, such as Greens and Libertarians,
seriously, and perhaps heed some of their political desires.
This would make more Americans feel as if they play an important
role in the republican process.
To complete the reform, we also need to make going out to vote
easier. Right now, we seemingly make voting as hard as we can.
Elections take place on weekdays, so if Americans want to vote,
they must take off work or rush to the polls before or after
work. When they get there, they must wait a long time to finish
the process, because the volunteer polling coordinators are old,
retired people. (Young people have to work, after all.) All this
makes voting seem not worth the hassle to millions of Americans.
To change that and increase turnout, Election Day should become
a federal holiday. That would allow Americans to vote without
worrying about missing work and forfeiting pay, or hurrying
through throngs of people in the morning or evening. Younger
Americans would also be able to volunteer to oversee the polls,
thereby making voting a smoother and faster experience.
While we're on the subject of changing our electoral system,
let's consider this: At the time the Constitution was drafted,
one of the Anti-Federalist objections to the document was to the
pluralistic election of representatives. The Anti-Federalists
argued this could allow the election of representatives whom
most of the community despised, but who still managed to get
more votes than anyone else. Instead, according to the
Anti-Federalists, districts should select their representatives
by majority vote.
I believe that Anti-Federalist objection has merit. How can a
representative represent a district if most of the people there
hate him? Changing congressional elections to two-stage
elections, similar to what I outlined above for presidential
elections, would be a good idea. That way, we could ensure the
majority of citizens in a district would have voted for their
congressman. All the benefits of switching the national
presidential election to a two-stage majority vote model would
apply here.
Many conservatives would object to the national scope of my
reform plan. They'd correctly point out it would erode
federalism. Because population centers--cities--would yield
greater power, our executive branch might also shift to the
left. Given the power of the presidency, this might produce a
government similarly inclined to governments in Europe. Anathema
to conservatives, that would be.
To counteract the leftward effect and to placate conservatives,
I suggest we repeal the 17th Amendment. Let the state
legislatures elect senators again. Senators who don't rely upon
the people as an electoral base would be a lot more willing to
challenge the president. Not only might the Senate be more
conservative than the President, but they'd feel safer defying
him since the people who put him in office wouldn't be the same
ones who put them in office. They wouldn't have to worry as much
about the President's popularity.
In addition, with the people electing both the House of
Representatives and the President under my plan, we'd need more
checks against the tyranny of the majority. Election of federal
senators by state legislatures would constitute such a check.
No electoral procedures could solve all problems. But this
extensive reform plan would eliminate many of them:
*Campaigns focusing only on battleground states.
*Nullification of millions of votes.
*Candidates whose only goal is to win a plurality of the ballots.
*Victories by candidates whom most of the community doesn't
support.
*Apathy of the electorate toward politics.
We especially should not underestimate the importance of the
last element. Only an interested and engaged citizenry can serve
as the foundation of a republic. Without it, a republic cannot
stand.
|
