I've been seeing some interesting discourse online surrounding the perception of the electoral college voting system in the United States. I think this ties in nicely with conversations we've had in our tutorials surrounding 'fair' election systems. A major argument against the electoral college system is that land does not vote, people do. In states such as Montana, Wyoming and the Dakotas, there is a lack of major cities sparking 'less' representation for those living rurally. Only a handful of other countries have a mirroring system, those including Estonia and Burma.
However, why should that matter if more people vote entirely for one candidate? The United States is an especially diverse and large country in landscape, and it is difficult to come up with an election system that wholeheartedly captures the feeling of the entire nation, for those living in cities and in the countryside. The electoral college is seen to be the solution to this issue. Nonetheless, it almost seems to do the opposite of its intended purpose. Only a few states with the most electoral college votes seem to be the deciding factors in an election, such as Pennsylvania, which has decided the outcome of elections for the past 10 cycles. When you include other 'battleground' states in this, such as Nevada, Arizona and Wisconsin, that is only 18% of Americans being decisive of the election, not even a quarter of the country.
I still have not come to a concrete opinion about the electoral college. I understand the desire that smaller states have to possess a larger stake in the outcome of an election, however, when putting into perspective the fact that 2 out of the 6 last elections were won by candidates who lost the popular vote, it is hard to see it as entirely democratic.
Resources:
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/4789952-electoral-college-change-vote/
I also find the electoral colleges in US elections incredibly interesting. While there is hardly any basis to argue that the electoral college is a purely democratic system, a system of direct election could be just as undemocratic. Pure majoritarianism erases minority votes. While the electoral college system has the potential to increase how democratic the US elections are by empowering smaller states that would otherwise be lost in the sea of all American votes, the difference is the intentional weighting of these states' influence to benefit a certain group of people. As you say, this ties in with our class discussions around electoral systems being 'fair.' Any small change in the way an election is carried out will inevitably change the outcome of the election, it is only when these changes are made to intentionally advantage those in power doe sit become undemocratic. The problem is not with having an electoral college, it is with which states are given the more power.
ReplyDeleteA New Zealand based example that comes to mind is the decision to mandate local governments to carry out a binding referendum as to whether Māori wards should be included in local elections. This decision, while presented as championing democracy, is undemocratic in that first, it will disempower Māori voices in local government as the likely result of these referenda will remove Māori wards, and second, intentionally predisposes local governments to then be stacked with more conservative representatives. These councillors will be more in favour of National's policies and champion National's causes more keenly than left-wing candidates.