Softly Disenfranchised
The impeccable and unflappable Josh Marshall has a very good summary of the debate over the Electoral College (i.e. get rid of it with a constitutional ammendment, or keep things as they are). Marshall talks about being somewhat uncertain of his new endorsement of abolishing the EC. I'm not as smart as Josh, nor as cautious. I am both certain that I look better in tight skirts, and solidly convinced that the EC should go.
The U.S. has continually moved to expand enfranchisement, through the 16th amendment (1913, race), 19th amendment (1920, sex), 23rd amendment (D.C. residents), 24th (failure to pay taxes will not abridge the right to vote), and 26th amendment (sets voting age at 18, from 21). While abolishing the electoral college would not grant anyone the right to vote who does not already have that right, it would get rid of the “soft” disenfranchisement of hundreds of thousands of voters who do not in any meaningful way contribute to the election of government representatives because of the fact of where they live. What point is there in voting if your vote doesn’t have an impact on the outcome of elections (whether you are Republican or Democrat or Libertarian or Constitutionalitarian)?
Marshall lays out the argument for abolishing the EC pretty comprehensively and convincingly. I have a few points to add and a little analysis of what it might mean for the future of American politics.
Clearly, abolishing the EC would have a huge impact on how election politics function. California and New York would receive the bulk of attention because they have the most voters. But it wouldn’t necessarily get rid of “swing states” (or, as is more likely, “swing cities”). Attention would turn to issues important to urban voters and voters living on the borders of the country (the borders have larger concentrations of people). This, I think, would mean an increased focus on immigration and security. It would mean investment in issues like urban public schools, sprawl and transportation, and housing. It would, in some sense, deprive states of a certain amount of political capital, as they would no longer be “delivering votes” or be on the receiving end of statewide funding for important election-year projects (roads, dams, etc.). It would mean that politics get, in a certain sense, smaller – regions of states would become more important than states, and cities would be the most important political entities of all. It would also mean that the rhetorical space of politics gets bigger -- by giving third parties more sway. It might have large implications for how future presidents are chosen (municipal leaders could, potentially, supplant or equal the power the governors now have when it comes to transitioning into national politics).
The biggest argument for getting rid of the EC, in my mind, is that the popular vote more accurately reflects the will of the people. People don't necessarily vote in demographic blocs (black, white, male, female, gay, youth, poor, urban, etc.) but looking at those blocs tells us things about this country. For instance: more people are not only living in cities, but moving to them. The latino population in the States is exploding (its been a slow detonation, gaining speed over the past few decades). Tying the election of the President to the popular vote will reflect these changes and forces the hand of our Head of State by increasing his responsivness to the reality of our country and the wants of its people.
Meanwhile, the small states really do not need any more insulation than they are afforded by the composition of the Senate. Would getting rid of the EC, however, mean that large swaths of rural voters would essentially become "softly" disenfranchised in place of their urban counterparts? Well, on the surface, yes. The quick rebuttal is that "majority rules" and getting rid of the electoral college empowers more voters than it would disempower. But if you think about it, rural areas provide critical resources that urban areas can't (lumber, agriculture, oil, land (!) and therefore manufacturing [you need space to build large factories], and no small amount of human capital -- it's still rural voters who contribute the most to the military, and I don't think that will change anytime soon). Rural areas will still have critical leverage with politicians and politicians will still have to court rural voters. Practically, in fact, it means that Democrats will have access to voters in the middle of the country that they haven't had for many years. Republicans, conversely, would have access to North Eastern or urban voters. Many solidly Blue states still have 40% of voters that vote Republican. And vice versa. You can bet the parties will pay attention to those previously neglected groups.
I would actually take the enfranchisement argument one step further and suggest that Election Day should be a national holiday. The sort-of poor (not the jobless, but the people who hold down three jobs to get by) – are functionally disenfranchised because they are not able to get time off of work to vote, or if they are, they are still unable to give the time to it because of other obligations. A national holdiay wouldn’t necessarily halt the problem for service industry workers (although they tend to work hours that are not strictly 9-5 and could probably get to the polls on one end of their shift or the other). In an ideal world, Election Day would be like Christmas Day. One of two days of the year that the whole country takes a collective deep breath and thinks about things other than money - the malls closed, the banks closed, the friperies cerada. Making Election Day a holiday would have the added benefit of envigorating voters, because all patriotic national holidays now come replete with TV specials, parades, and platitudes from our elected representatives. Voting would become an issue of patriotism, and it will have been endorsed by the action of the federal government in telling us all that voting is at least as important as honoring Christopher Columbus or our war heroes.
The U.S. has continually moved to expand enfranchisement, through the 16th amendment (1913, race), 19th amendment (1920, sex), 23rd amendment (D.C. residents), 24th (failure to pay taxes will not abridge the right to vote), and 26th amendment (sets voting age at 18, from 21). While abolishing the electoral college would not grant anyone the right to vote who does not already have that right, it would get rid of the “soft” disenfranchisement of hundreds of thousands of voters who do not in any meaningful way contribute to the election of government representatives because of the fact of where they live. What point is there in voting if your vote doesn’t have an impact on the outcome of elections (whether you are Republican or Democrat or Libertarian or Constitutionalitarian)?
Marshall lays out the argument for abolishing the EC pretty comprehensively and convincingly. I have a few points to add and a little analysis of what it might mean for the future of American politics.
Clearly, abolishing the EC would have a huge impact on how election politics function. California and New York would receive the bulk of attention because they have the most voters. But it wouldn’t necessarily get rid of “swing states” (or, as is more likely, “swing cities”). Attention would turn to issues important to urban voters and voters living on the borders of the country (the borders have larger concentrations of people). This, I think, would mean an increased focus on immigration and security. It would mean investment in issues like urban public schools, sprawl and transportation, and housing. It would, in some sense, deprive states of a certain amount of political capital, as they would no longer be “delivering votes” or be on the receiving end of statewide funding for important election-year projects (roads, dams, etc.). It would mean that politics get, in a certain sense, smaller – regions of states would become more important than states, and cities would be the most important political entities of all. It would also mean that the rhetorical space of politics gets bigger -- by giving third parties more sway. It might have large implications for how future presidents are chosen (municipal leaders could, potentially, supplant or equal the power the governors now have when it comes to transitioning into national politics).
The biggest argument for getting rid of the EC, in my mind, is that the popular vote more accurately reflects the will of the people. People don't necessarily vote in demographic blocs (black, white, male, female, gay, youth, poor, urban, etc.) but looking at those blocs tells us things about this country. For instance: more people are not only living in cities, but moving to them. The latino population in the States is exploding (its been a slow detonation, gaining speed over the past few decades). Tying the election of the President to the popular vote will reflect these changes and forces the hand of our Head of State by increasing his responsivness to the reality of our country and the wants of its people.
Meanwhile, the small states really do not need any more insulation than they are afforded by the composition of the Senate. Would getting rid of the EC, however, mean that large swaths of rural voters would essentially become "softly" disenfranchised in place of their urban counterparts? Well, on the surface, yes. The quick rebuttal is that "majority rules" and getting rid of the electoral college empowers more voters than it would disempower. But if you think about it, rural areas provide critical resources that urban areas can't (lumber, agriculture, oil, land (!) and therefore manufacturing [you need space to build large factories], and no small amount of human capital -- it's still rural voters who contribute the most to the military, and I don't think that will change anytime soon). Rural areas will still have critical leverage with politicians and politicians will still have to court rural voters. Practically, in fact, it means that Democrats will have access to voters in the middle of the country that they haven't had for many years. Republicans, conversely, would have access to North Eastern or urban voters. Many solidly Blue states still have 40% of voters that vote Republican. And vice versa. You can bet the parties will pay attention to those previously neglected groups.
I would actually take the enfranchisement argument one step further and suggest that Election Day should be a national holiday. The sort-of poor (not the jobless, but the people who hold down three jobs to get by) – are functionally disenfranchised because they are not able to get time off of work to vote, or if they are, they are still unable to give the time to it because of other obligations. A national holdiay wouldn’t necessarily halt the problem for service industry workers (although they tend to work hours that are not strictly 9-5 and could probably get to the polls on one end of their shift or the other). In an ideal world, Election Day would be like Christmas Day. One of two days of the year that the whole country takes a collective deep breath and thinks about things other than money - the malls closed, the banks closed, the friperies cerada. Making Election Day a holiday would have the added benefit of envigorating voters, because all patriotic national holidays now come replete with TV specials, parades, and platitudes from our elected representatives. Voting would become an issue of patriotism, and it will have been endorsed by the action of the federal government in telling us all that voting is at least as important as honoring Christopher Columbus or our war heroes.
posted by Hanna Neuschwander at 1:58 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home