In defense of the electoral college

A twisty journey

Possibly my longest post ever, but I found it entertaining...

I have been noodling how to talk about the Electoral College for months because it's a hell of a distraction for me but I knew I obviously needed to post it up before the election. I am a huge fan of the E.C., which makes me a bit of an oddity, and I flinch every time I hear "abolish the electoral college" and especially when it's got a snide undertone of "you're against democracy." On the other hand, the E.C. is directly responsible for getting us Trump…

So, I mean, damn. Defend the single biggest factor that put the single worst thing to have happened to American politics in my lifetime into the White House? Even my arrogance kinda took a step back and looked at me like "Dude. Really?"

To which I say it's gonna be FUN! At least for anyone willing to come along for the ride.

But where to start? This is arguably one of the most complicated portions of the Constitution because it's hip deep in the concepts of checks and balances, federalism, the flaws of democracy, and the imperfection of the entire document. And even Facebook has a wordcount limit so it's not like I'm going to write a damn book about it. So how do I distill it down?

I started with how not to do it.

I can't just say "go read the Federalist Papers before you're allowed to have an opinion on our government."…Mostly 'cause I haven't read them all. However, Federalist No. 10, and 39, and 68 are particularly important for this topic if you're curious. And lest you think that was only one of the authors - both Hamilton and Madison are represented by those three.

And I can't just say "do you even understand why we have a bicameral legislature?" because the stretch from legislature to E.C. is like ambivalent.dad-level-stretch and needs explanation.

And I can't just say "you know direct democracy is a shitty form of governance, right?" because…well…I think that makes people angry no matter how quickly you start talking about how the USA is an indirect democracy. "We aren't a democracy" is another snide gotcha of the other side.

So I can just see people seething now but, I mean, I'm arguing for the thing that got us Trump so I've gotta have fun with this while realizing it's going to make people angry. Maybe someone will even comment! Or even argue with me for once!

Anyways.

Where I've settled right now is that I want to talk about imperfection. The Constitution is an imperfect document that imperfectly answers the question of government in a particular way. In my opinion it answers it better than any answers that came before like monarchy, dictatorship, empire, or clan. But the best answer doesn't mean the perfect answer and that's specifically baked in to our Constitution with its adaptability.

And the E.C. is similar - it's an imperfect answer to electing the Executive of our nation. But, like our Constitution, I can say "it is a better answer than many alternatives." And that's the form my point will take - not that the E.C. is a perfect answer…only that it's a better answer than the mythical "popular vote" that people talk about when they talk about abolishing it. I just have to do some twisty logic to get there…

So imperfection is why we have checks and balances. Check and balances create a CHURN, they create a COMPETITION and a somewhat orderly CHAOS so that what rises to the top is…the "best" answer for government. Congress makes the laws, but they need Presidential approval or a veto-proof majority. The President sets foreign policy but he can't pay for the army that backs up that policy without appropriation. Laws are made by elected officials but enforced by appointed judges who generally can't be removed without cause. What comes out of this is a breathtakingly elegant system of competing concerns to generate better answers. It's actually not dissimilar to how I think the two party system works - it's chaotic, it's slow, but it does slowly arc towards justice as that definition changes overtime with a slowly maturing civilization. Evolution thrives in chaos, and the founders gave us a chaotic government that used our human imperfection to fight amongst ourselves as strength.

Similarly, this is why we don't have a direct democracy. Humans are imperfect. Most of us are sheep that quickly fall prey to a demagogue who just has to sell us a bill of goods until he can get elected. There is no longer term considerations needed. Another imperfection is the tyranny of the majority. In fact, my favorite definition of democracy is "Two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner." Once you've got the firm majority, well, you largely don't need to care about the rest of the country at all. Instead what we got were Representatives elected every 2 years to be the most responsive, a President elected every 4 years, and Senators elected every 6 years. And the intent is that each of those positions is moving away from the short attention span of the populace to something with a slightly longer view. You'll note this is also why judges are appointed for life - because their view is supposed to be the longest. It's also one reason why Senators advise and consent on judges but the Representatives do not.

Consider also that LAWS require both houses to pass. Both the short-sighted Representatives and the longer-viewed Senators have to pass by majority rule. And both of those groups are ostensibly elected to know more than us plebian voters because it's their job to understand the minutiae that we can't be bothered with. Both chambers of the bicameral legislature must sign off on laws, and then the President as well. Competing concerns that give rise to the things that ACTUALLY govern us - the laws of the land. And if the choices they make are too egregious, well, we'll just fire them eventually.

But there's another nuance to the two chambers beyond their temporal sight. Every state gets no more than TWO Senators…and a population proportional number of Representatives. Yet another competing concern! Huge states should have more input! That is democratic and that is beautiful…but you must always guard against the dangers of democracy too. The tyranny of the majority - of the huge states - is a danger if the smaller states don't have some say. Why should a small state even STAY in the union at that point? What is to UNITE the United States of America if larger states can, at any point, override the smaller?

So every state has a minimum amount of say in the federal government. At least two Senators and at least one Representative. And, yes, that means they have an outsized power in the Senate. But that's one of the compromises required to get them to join and stay where they are. And, make no mistake, there are ADVANTAGES to having multiple states. Because those states COMPETE and CHURN and try their best to be the best state in the union. And out of this chaos all states grow and evolve. They each have their own personality and anyone who has visited California, South Carolina, Michigan, or New York can tell you that. The heart of federalism is a point very near to my heart - diversity is strength. We WANT the states to be different and have power themselves.

Wheels within wheels, man, wheels within wheels.

It's almost like a bunch of brilliant individuals got together and over the course of months worked out a compromise that leveraged humanity's strengths, shored up our weaknesses, and created a form of government that has given rise to a worldwide revolution in governance theory, right?!

So…maybe the next time some jumped up carnival barker of a politician starts blathering about materially altering a major part of it we take a step back and think about it, yeah?

Okay. "Jumped up carnival barker of a politician" is maybe a little strong even if I like the phrase enough to repeat it. Still, the point stands. This is my rubric for every "let's change the Constitution" argument like abolishing the E.C. The burden should always be on the person wanting to amend it. Prove to me why we should alter our founding document. And "the world has changed beyond what the founders would recognize" is a non-starter. People are entirely recognizable. People are what matter. People are what the government is designed around. Not flying machines and rockets and the internet. Those are just tools. None of that somehow altered us from the people as they existed when our nation was founded. We are just as fallible and imperfect and prone to delusion.

And almost the entirety of my piece has nothing to do with the Electoral College.

…Or does it? /waggles eyebrows.

Because the E.C. does nothing more than reflect all the same sentiments we see in the rest of the Constitution. In fact, the five hundred and thirty eight votes almost perfectly reflects the combined number of Senators and Representatives in Congress (without places like DC muddying up the waters). And in order to win election it must be a majority of electors, just like a law must pass with a majority. And just like a Senator has an outsized impact of power over passage of a law or a judicial appointment…Alaska and North Dakota have an outsized impact in a presidential election. Not very much of one, of course, because California still has craploads more electors but, hey, enough for people to whine about it. And enough to elect a shitty President without the popular vote.

But a process having a shitty outcome doesn't inherently mean it's a flawed process. Input determines output. And that, I think, is on more people than most of us are willing to admit. You can't look at an inedible cake and blame it all on how you cooked the cake…especially if one of the ingredients was arsenic. The bad outcome is far more about the REST of politics in this country than the specific mechanism of the E.C.

And, in essence, that's my problem with abolishing the electoral college. Like everything else in the Constitution it was factoring in human nature, avoiding direct democracy, and creating a competitive environment where the STATES are supposed to matter. We are the United States of America. It's right there on the tin - 'states' is kind of foundational to what we are. Like the rest of our government, the Electoral College is an imperfect answer that came about because imperfect people needed to be governed by other imperfect people. I can't tell you it's GOOD or RIGHT…hell…it got us Trump. But I can tell you it's better than a simple popular vote.