Roger Stone proposes a way to reform the Electoral College, turning it into a proportional representation system.
I have a better idea: Let’s go back to the system that gave us the best president in US History: George Washington.
The way it would work is as follows.
First, state legislatures choose, according to whichever method they like, electors that match the number of senators and representatives from their state. Then, on the chosen day, the electors meet separately to determine who they will vote for president. They send a sealed, certified letter to the House of Representatives with the details of their votes, who then read the votes aloud in a public session of the house. If any one person receives a majority count, they become president. If there is no majority, then the representatives choose a president from among the people who received votes.
I believe state legislatures would do well to remove the popular vote portion of the presidential election altogether. I believe select committees should be appointed to debate the issue of who should be president and make a wise decision. I believe state legislatures would be wise to choose people on that committee who can put politics aside and think about what kind of person we need to run the federal administration for the next four years. However, if the state legislatures want to abuse that power and choose electors who vote for the person they wish, and thus take on the weighty matter of who the president should be, let them consume their limited time with this fruitless debate.
I draw on logic and reason as my guide in this matter. See, we don’t have elections for CEO by the shareholders. CEOs are chosen by the boards who represent the shareholders. These board members spend a great deal of time finding good candidates and interviewing them. This kind of process is impossible on such a large scale as shareholders. Why do we think it is appropriate for all 300 million Americans to think about who should be president?
If the Electoral College process were adhered to, with the electors free to vote their conscience, then after their appointment and before the meeting, they would spend all their free time thinking as hard as they could about what we need in a president and which candidates would best serve the needs of our country. People who are likely candidates would probably be called in to interview with groups of electors. Debates would be focused on weight policy matters and issues of qualifications, not on political sloganeering or organizing mobs to rustle up votes across the country. Presidential aspirants would have to be well-versed in politics, political theory, military command, and administration, or it would be obvious that they were clearly unqualified for the job, no matter how politically appealing they are.
When the electors meet to discuss their final decisions, the debate would focus on substance, not politics. The principle question would be about our country and whether each man (or woman) would be a good president for it. All the other issues pale in comparison to these.
In the likely event that there is no majority vote, the only body which should be entrusted with deciding the president would be the house. Seeing as how the house and the president need to be united in purpose, this is the ideal scenario, and leads us to the kind of harmony that parliamentary systems have, with their chief executive chosen by the parliament. Instead of regional interests being pitted against national interests, as we are today, we would see regional interests compromise for their own good and the good of the whole.
Which of the above features are found in a democratic, mob-rule system that Roger Stone proposed? None. Roger Stone, I believe, doesn’t understand why democracy is a bad thing, and why the American system of government was never setup as a democracy. He may have a hard time understand why the country has discovered so many new problems since we adopted the system of electing our senators by a vote of the people, rather than by the state legislatures. Democracy is appealing to the masses—but the masses are not appealing to reasonable government and the protection of individual liberties. We can no more hope that an individual would, as a matter of life, constantly defend the rights of others, than we can expect the masses to do so. Thus, the system we have were democratic notions are tempered by republican aristocracy and the tyranny of an individual president.
These arguments are not new, nor are they to be ignored. These are the reasons why we have what we have today. Those who can’t argue against these particular arguments—and arguing for a more “fair” democratic process is not a starter—do not need to waste their time in thinking of changing the system.
June 25, 2011 at 9:56 am |
Because we don’t live in a corporate state, and because corporations are not in the habit of protecting basic human rights. Because an investment in a company is distinctly different from having an investment in a country that can take away your rights.
Comparing two dissimilar things does not make an argument logical.
Absolutely, thoroughly illogical. You’re assuming that this Electoral-College-on-steroids would be immune from electioneering, from politicking, and from typical partisanship. You can propose all of the new systems that you want, but to assume that people will always act like sinners in one and saints in another is a big misread of human nature.
Honestly, all you’re proposing is to disenfranchise a bunch of people, and shift campaign dollars from one target to another. You’re advocating for less control by the people, in the vain hope that it would mean more freedom for everyone.
If you truly wanted to get at a more democratic system, one that would represent a wider set of beliefs but not be constrained by simple partisanship, there are a number of better alternatives. Allow for multiple smaller parties to exist with instant runoff voting and use party lists to fill a portion of the seats in a lower chamber. Provide for proportional representation of the largest constituencies in the electorate in the upper chamber — why should any state have two senators from one party unless 75% of the electorate identifies with that party?
Heck, in an era where electronic communications are possible, perhaps even experiment with the idea that the lower house should represent proxy voting. Representatives get their power directly from the people, with several candidates from larger districts are provided voting power in the Congress based on the number of people they have supporting them.
July 28, 2011 at 12:20 pm |
I think you’ve missed the whole point, and are assuming things that simply aren’t true.
The board members are concerned, first and only, with protecting the shareholders of the company. Their job, and the job they were elected by the shareholders to do, is to ensure that the shareholders have a firm voice in the company. If the shareholders elect board members who do not behave like this, then they are free to replace them at the next meeting.
Your rejection of all things even remotely connected with capitalism shows you have a very shallow understanding of capitalism. Did you not know that churches, non-profits, and even social groups are organized in the same way? The United States government as well as all the state governments follow the same, representative model of organization. It is capitalism that borrows from the sensible model of representative government of republicanism, not the other way around. The republic form of government came first, and then the corporation.
You are correct that the politics would shift to the electoral college, leaving the American voter with only the decision about which representatives and senators to send to their state legislatures. I outlined this as a good thing, because having a few people who have devoted themselves full-time to choosing the best president possible will always get a better result than having 300 million Americans who cannot devote even a few hours to the question.
I absolutely, POSITIVELY, DO NOT WANT democracy. Democracy is a plague. It is a sickness, a disease. It is a rot, a cancer. Democracy destroyed Athens, and it destroys every culture where it has been introduced. Democracy is mob rule. It is two wolves and one sheep voting on what’s for dinner. Democracy preys on people’s ignorance and animal instincts. It brings out the worst in us, and destroys the best. Democracy murdered Socrates. Democracy corrupts all it touches. Democracy turns whites against blacks, poor against rich, male against female, old against young, taxpayer against government. Democracy divides families and communities and churches and states and nations into Side A and Side B. It turns politics into warfare. It makes violence and revolution a palatable alternative. Read what the Founding Fathers had to say about Democracy, and you’ll understand how I feel. There is no redeeming quality in Democracy. In fact, Communism cannot exist without it. Communism is really pure democracy.
Were the people less than completely ignorant, the first vote they would have would be to abolish their right to vote, as the American people did in adopting the Constitution. We, the people, of the United States, gave power to run government to representatives, and retained only the rights to choose those representatives, leaving all other decisions of state to the representatives.
The entire reason we are in the mess we are in today is because of Democracy. We need people who are chosen not for their political views but more especially for their ability to find politically agreeable solutions and who are wise and trustworthy to represent us in making the hard decisions like who should be president or how we should allocate our government budgets. We shouldn’t think that the American people, as a whole, are more capable of making political decisions than a group of people who represent distinct groups of American people are.
August 15, 2011 at 4:12 pm |
So, given your rejection of (direct) democracy, in favor of representative democracy (and as little of that as you can get), would you agree to the following points?
– Proposition 8 in California is not legitimate, because it was enacted by popular vote;
– The New York State Assembly’s legalization of abortion (1972) and of gay marriage (2011) were both proper acts of a legislature;
– Washington state’s voters’ rejection of full gay civil rights (1997) was not legitimate, and thus our state legislature’s addition of “sexual orientation” to our state’s anti-discrimination law (2007) was fully justified.
If you do not agree with these points, please tell us why having state legislatures make decisions leads to better results than having voters make decisions.
August 24, 2011 at 11:24 am |
“Proposition 8 in California is not legitimate, because it was enacted by popular vote;”
It was enacted according to the laws of that state, so it is law.
“The New York State Assembly’s legalization of abortion (1972) and of gay marriage (2011) were both proper acts of a legislature;”
Again, a lawful act of law. Wrongheaded, and stupid, but law nonetheless.
“Washington state’s voters’ rejection of full gay civil rights (1997) was not legitimate, and thus our state legislature’s addition of “sexual orientation” to our state’s anti-discrimination law (2007) was fully justified.”
It was legitimate, as was the legislature’s actions.
I disagree with popular democracy because it is not in the interests of the mob to respect the rights of the individual. It takes the cooler heads of the elected representatives to adequately consider all sides of the issue.
The reason why the people are not getting what they want is because they feel like they can keep the legislators who work against their interests and bind them with popular democratic issues. This obviously doesn’t work that way. Voters should spend their primary attention on their local elected representatives, and the issues should be addressed only through their representatives. Representatives need to express what their stance is on important issues like these, and defend their actions to the satisfaction of their voters, or find another job.