Background: 2000-20220-2024 and $$$
According to the Federal Election Commission, the 2000 presidential election raised $629 million. In 2020 the tab ballooned to over $4 billion.
This year, according to Open Secrets, state and federal midterms are projected to exceed $16.4 billion with state-level fundraising projected to reach nearly $7.5 billion. Is this government by the people, and for the people, or is it government influenced by deep-pocketed interests that marginalize the voices of ordinary folk? Democracy?... is this democracy? And here we are again... squandering money on another presidential election. I am sure we can all think of many better uses for that kind of money. Worse yet, we must deal with ‘the Donald’ headache again. Imagining him in the White House scares the bejeesus out of me.
A lot has changed since publishing the May 1 edition of this blog: Biden is out, Harris is in, and the Harris/Trump debate provided viewers with undeniable proof that "the Donald" should never-ever-ever be allowed near the White House again.
Consider "CNN's Road to 270 interactive" web page projecting which candidate will win each state's electoral college votes. As of 9.14.24, there are now seven states that are classified as "battleground" states: Arizona (11), Nevada (6), Georgia (16), Michigan (15), North Carolina (16), Pennsylvania (19), and Wisconsin (10) are shown as toss-up states. Harris needs 45 of these EC votes, and Trump needs 51 EC votes.
As you can see, the victory margins are razor-thin -- ALL of this despite the overwhelming evidence that 'the Donald' is an amoral, unethical, megalomaniac, a con artist pitching bibles, perfume, and sneakers. A true democracy cannot flourish when its electorate is unwilling or unable to differentiate fact from fiction.
"In all, Trump faces 91 felony counts across two state courts and two different federal districts, any of which could potentially produce a prison sentence. He has already lost a civil suit in New York that could hobble his business empire, as well as a pair of large defamation judgments. Meanwhile, he is the leading Republican candidate in the race to become the next president. Though the timelines for many of the cases are now up in the air, he could be in the heat of the campaign at the same time that his legal fate is being decided." The Atlantic
Our Electoral College System
With all of the above as a backdrop, I decided to pick up where I left off in April's blog, “Common Baseline Facts.” Given the critical nature of this year's presidential election, I decided to focus on learning more about our Electoral College system. If you are already familiar with the history of the EC, select another blog or menu, or read on and post a comment.
In 1789, Congress established the Electoral College: Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution. The framers of our US Constitution added the EC as a compromise. It was intended to prevent the large states from having an advantage over the small states – think New York versus Delaware or New Hampshire. It gave the less populous states additional electoral weight. It was seen as a means of sharing power between the national and state governments and support for the two-party system. That was the 13-state thinking some 234 years ago.
According to the Congressional Research Office, since 1800 there have been over 700 attempts to either reform or abolish the Electoral College. Alexander Hamilton, one of the original architects of the EC, was so displeased with the way it was being executed that he drafted a constitutional amendment to fix or abolish it. Unfortunately, 679 attempts later, it is still with us.
Although the EC may have been relevant in 18th-century America, it has become obsolete today. It is a burdensome albatross that hangs around our constitutional necks, and it reminds us of this country’s troubled history of voter suppression and discrimination that denied women, African, Native, and Asian Americans the right to vote.
The Electoral College 2024
The current EC is made up of 538 electors. Each state’s electors are calculated based on the number of congressional representatives plus each state’s two senators. So, for example, Arizona has 9 electors representing the state’s 9 congressional districts + 2 senators for a total of 11 EC votes. AZ Map
You may be surprised that we voters do not choose the electors. Each political party nominates a slate of potential electors made up of party loyalists, activists, and other political poohbahs. Except for Maine and Nebraska, the winner of the state's popular vote for president determines whether the Democrats or Republicans get to choose the state’s electors.
Donald, Hillary & the EC
In 2016 ‘the Donald’ and Hillary were duking it out. Tragically, Hillary lost, and ‘the Donald’ became our 45th president. The Electoral College vote was 304 for Donald and 227 for Hillary. However, Hillary won 2.9 million more popular votes than Trump. IMO, winning the popular vote should have determined the winner but... NAAAH.
In our history of presidential elections, there have been five in which the president lost the popular vote but won the EC vote: 1824 John Quincy Adams, 1876 Rutherford B. Hayes, 1888 Benjamin Harrison, 2000 George W. Bush, and 2016 Donald Trump.
In 2016 the presidential election hinged on six states: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. In 2016, Trump won Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin by the narrowest of margins: 0.2, 0.7, and 0.8 percentage points, respectively, giving Trump 46 electoral votes. These states are among 48 states that have winner-take-all laws.
Fair? I don’t think so – regardless of which party won. For example, in Pennsylvania’s 2016 presidential results, Clinton got 49.8% of the vote to Trump's 50.2%. If you were to round the result to the nearest whole number, the state’s 20 EC votes would be split evenly. IMO, a winning threshold of .02% was not enough to grant Trump all of Pennsylvania’s 20 EC votes because it disenfranchised nearly half of the state’s voters. A more equitable solution might have been to award Trump 10.4 (50.2%) of Pennsylvania’s 20 EC votes and 9.6 (49.8%) EC votes to Clinton. Recognizing that you can’t simply ‘split’ an electoral vote, why not 'round up’ the winner’s EC total, giving Trump 11 and Clinton 9 EC votes?
I am undoubtedly oversimplifying this, and there may be lots of good reasons why it isn’t tabulated this way. All I know is that both parties spent millions of dollars on these six, winner-take-all, battleground states. These six ended up playing an outsized role in our presidential election and Trump’s win—for me, a bitter pill indeed.
The EC also impacts the representation of minority groups who tend to be geographically concentrated in states that experience little if any candidate campaigning. These are referred to as ‘blackout states.’ 62% of African Americans, 72% of Native Americans, and 77% of Latinos live in blackout states. These groups are under-represented in our current EC system – a fact that is inconsistent with the principle of one person, one vote.
The Congressional District Method
Only Maine and Nebraska use a congressional district method. This approach creates multiple congressional district popular votes and a potential split in the EC vote. Adopted in Maine in 1972 and Nebraska in 1992, two electoral votes are given to the state’s popular vote winner, and one EC vote is given to the popular vote winner in each congressional district.
For example, Maine has two congressional districts and four EC votes. In the 2016 presidential election, Clinton won 47.83% of the popular vote to Trump’s 44.87%. Clinton won District 1’s popular vote, and Trump won District 2, giving each candidate 1 EC vote. Since Clinton won the overall popular vote, she received 2 EC votes plus 1 EC vote for her District 1 win, for a total of 3 electoral votes. Trump won in congressional district 2 which gave him 1 EC vote.
This method is not perfect, and not a solution that would fit every state – especially those where the dominant political party can set/define/change district boundaries to their advantage—gerrymandering is yet another layer complicating our entire electoral process. At every step, both parties jockey for position and do whatever they can to stress the system. Machiavelli would have been proud.
/The Proposed Popular Vote Method *
This is not a ‘flip-a-switch-and-it's-all-good' solution. However, I believe there are more advantages than disadvantages to adopting this method. Here are a few brief points on both sides of the argument:
Arguments For
Democratic Representation: The National Popular Vote ensures that the presidential candidate who receives the most votes nationwide wins, reflecting the democratic principle of majority rule.
Equal Voting Power: Under the popular vote system, every vote carries equal weight, regardless of the state in which it is cast, promoting fairness and equality in the electoral process.
National Campaigning: Moving to a popular vote system encourages candidates to campaign nationally, engaging with voters across all states rather than focusing solely on swing states.
Eliminating Discrepancies: The popular vote method addresses discrepancies where the candidate who placed second in the popular vote was elected president, as seen in past elections.
Arguments Against
Tyranny of the Majority: Critics argue that a popular vote could lead to a "tyranny of the majority," potentially disregarding the interests of minority groups or less populated states.
Complexity of Implementation: Transitioning to a popular vote system would require significant constitutional changes and may face challenges in gaining widespread support from state legislatures and Congress.
Risk of Electoral Chaos: Concerns exist about potential delays in election results, endless recounts, and lawsuits under a national popular vote system, which could lead to political chaos and instability.
Betrayal of State Voters: Critics argue that the National Popular Vote could lead to situations where states are forced to betray their own voters by awarding electors to candidates who did not win their state's popular vote, potentially causing public outrage and undermining trust in the electoral process.
Our Behavioral Sink
All of this political bruhaha reminded me of a famous experiment involving rodents in enclosed environments. I found what I was looking for, John B. Calhoun’s “Behavioral Sink” experiments.
Calhoun was an American ethologist who, in the 1960’s conducted a series of experiments on rodents. The experimental phenomenon he termed the “behavioral sink”. Calhoun created enclosed environments he called "mouse universes" that provided rodents with ample food, water, and nesting material. The catch? Limited space.
At the beginning, the rodent population boomed, but over time, despite the abundant resources, population growth slowed and eventually stopped. Severe social disruptions followed: increased aggression, breakdown of social roles, abandonment of young, hyperactivity followed by withdrawal. In the end, these social breakdowns led to population decline and, in some cases, complete extinction within the environment.
In our 2024 social model, I see parallels between Calhoun's experiments and the new behavioral sinks we have created. While crowding and overpopulation remain part of the story, we have added intellectually confined spaces made up of our political, religious, and cultural universes: East vs West, Jew vs Arab, Evangelicals vs Secularists, Trumpers vs ‘the Elite’, 2nd Amendment-ers vs Everyone Else, Abortion Rights vs Right-to-Lifers, Climate Supporters vs Deniers... and on and on. Gone, or disappearing, are any attempts to find common ground, to recognize our collective humanity, and work together to overcome the numerous challenges that are rending us apart.
Our inability to get along is nothing new, we have been at each other's throats throughout history. What is new and different is that all of these 'crowded spaces' now exist under one technological cloud that, in the wrong hands, threatens to do us all in. The Internet has become both a ‘cage’ and a potential doorway to a new world order.
Democracy Gone Wrong
In case you had forgotten, here are a few past examples of ‘democracy’ gone wrong:
1. Tammany Hall (late 19th/early 20th century): The Tammany Hall political machine in New York City was notorious for practices like voter intimidation, ballot stuffing, and patronage systems that influenced elections.
2. Grandfather clauses and literacy tests (late 19th/early 20th century): These measures in some states were used to disenfranchise Black voters after the 15th Amendment granted them the right to vote.
3. Watergate scandal (1972): Officials in President Nixon's re-election campaign were caught breaking into the Democratic National Committee headquarters, leading to Nixon's resignation.
4. Illinois elections (1960s-1970s): There were allegations of widespread voter fraud, including ballot stuffing and voting by deceased individuals, during elections involving Chicago mayors.
5. ABSCAM (1978-1980): An FBI sting operation caught several members of Congress accepting bribes in exchange for political favors.
6. Voter suppression allegations (2000s-present): Various state voting laws and practices, like voter ID requirements and purges of voter rolls, have been criticized by some as suppressing voter turnout, especially among minorities.
7. Gerrymandering (ongoing): The manipulation of district boundaries for political gain is seen by some as undemocratic and corrupting the electoral process.
8. Foreign interference allegations (2016): U.S. intelligence agencies concluded that Russia conducted cyber-operations to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.
9. January 6, 2020's insurrection and the attempted undoing of our presidential election.
If you have gotten this far, congratulations. 2024’s presidential campaign will be like no other. Please engage and vote as though your future depended on it.
Your thoughts, comments, and rebuttals are welcome.
留言