The August 1 News & Observer (the largest newspaper in Raleigh, North Carolina) carries an editorial “The old college itch” which perpetuates the same thoughtless prejudice against minor parties that has been promulgated for decades. The editorial’s main point is to oppose the bill in the legislature to let each U.S. House district choose its own presidential elector. The reason set forth is that such a bill would “undercut the two-party system — a bad thing for political moderation and stability. Third parties — heck, even fourth and fifth parties — would have a far easier time winning Electoral College votes. That could toss elections into the U.S. House of Representatives, inviting deal-making and creating chaos.”
This editorial mis-uses the terms “two-party system” and “stability.” “Two-party system” was coined in 1911 to describe the British party system. It does not mean a system in which only two parties exist, or a system in which only two parties ever win any elections. It means a system in which two parties are much larger than other parties. Both Great Britain and Canada have two-party systems. There are only two parties in each country that have a realistic chance of winning control of the national government. But minor parties always win seats in the British and Canadian parliaments, and sometimes they win control of a region or a province. Nevertheless, Great Britain and Canada do not suffer from “instability” and their national governments are always “moderate” (as opposed to “extreme”).
The old chestnut that minor parties lead to “instability” began in the 1950’s, when Italy and France had parliamentary systems, without a popularly-elected president. Also, both nations used proportional representation. The combination of the parliamentary system and p.r., and the particular details of how p.r. worked in those two countries, led to frequent changes in national leadership in Italy and France. U.S. headlines proclaimed with monotonous regularity that the government of one or the other country has “fallen”. Premiers took power and lost power in a matter of months, or sometimes weeks. This fostered a misunderstanding in the U.S. that the very existence of a multi-party system automatically leads to instability.
Most members of Congress, and most judges, and many editorial writers, grew up in the 1950’s and 1960’s and thought they had “learned” that if minor parties are treated with equality, this would cause “instability”. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Byron White, the worst enemy of minor parties in U.S. history, always sprinked his ballot access decisions with references to “stability” (a term he never defined). Ballot Access News has written a letter to the editor of the News Observer and hopes that the newspaper will publish it.
As to the electoral college itself, there is no instance at which any minor party or independent presidential candidate would have elected anyone to the electoral college since 1972, even if every single state let each U.S. House district choose its own presidential elector. Although Ross Perot carried some counties in 1992, he didn’t carry any congressional districts.
I guess what is one man’s instability, is another’s democracy. Sadly both deciding electoral college by congressional district and the NPV is solving yesterday’s problem. Except for 2000, we’d have to go to the 19th century for an example of a candidate winning the popular vote but losing the electoral college.
At least from my perspective what we need is a system that encourages not discourages independents and third parties from getting electoral votes.
I rise in support of the previous poster’s comment. I would that what the editor points out about the electoral vote by congressional districts is irrefutable. It leads to another question however: How is such uniformity across districts achieved?
By capping the size of the U.S. House of Representatives at 435 members while the population increases the “resolution” or details of the body politic are blurred. Large minorities are simply washed out of the gross image that emerges in the Electoral College vote.
An expanded U.S. House would mean a larger Electoral College vote, which allocated by Congresional District, would reveal a much clearer and more diverse voting public.
Since the size of the U.S. House has been frozen for nearly a century by entrenched party legislation, the popular legitimacy of the Presidential election has been eroded and with it that of the entire national edifice.
In the end I am not sure it matters if its state, congressional district, or even national. The problem is in the winner take all plurality system. The electoral college could be much more democratic under a IRV / STV voting system.
Stabality? Like squandering a reasonable budget surplus? Like ‘taking the one and only global superpower to a point of being an international joke? Like that?
I agree with proletariat, if we have to have the College, something like proportional allocation or NPV would be good, but not better than an amendment with majority requirement. However, in regards to D. Frank Robinson, congressional allocation wouldn’t, in my mind, really be that diverse because these winner-take-all districts are already gerrymandered toward a certain voter. The minority in those districts would probably not have their wishes represented as they would if they were in a larger national or state pool of like-minded voters.
The two party monopoly controlling the elections, the presidential “debates”, the media, etc. is the next wordething to the one party system known from the USSR and other “peoples’ democracies”. Due to “bipartisan” efforts, the two parties are in fact just two faces of the same paternalist, prohibitionist party, playing musical chairs with one another on the one chair they make available for the winner. Note that as soon as the winner is announced, the callis, once again, for bipartisan “unity”.