Can’t agree with you on this one, much as I like playing the contrarian myself. The Electoral College was a concoction partly to appease Southern states and partly from the Founders’ fear of democracy. No other state in the world copied it. Every election in the U.S. but one is a state or local one, and each is decided by majority vote; only that for the presidency is a national one, and in that alone a single election becomes fifty separate ones, each with its own rules. If India, with more than four times our population, recently concluded an election without fuss or controversy; with a single set of regulations and on the principle of one person, one vote, so can we.
I wonder how many more Republicans would show up in states like California in a popular vote scenario? I assume many just stay home, especially if they live in Northern California locations. As you correctly pointed out, there are essentially, unintended consequences to any system. Using a static model to simply assume that things would remain the same, vote-wise, in a popular vote scenario is a dubious assumption.
Here in Arizona, we have a lot of California residents moving here. They sell their homes there and can purchase a home for cash here that is nicer, larger, and less expensive than the one that they sold. I am sure that, in many cases, the move from California to Arizona, Texas, Florida, or NC, is due to economic and quality of life issues. What I find curious is that they vote for the same policies that caused them to leave in the first place. Arizona, once a solid red state, is now quite purple. California is losing Congressional representation to other states, namely Texas and Florida. (Arizona did not pick up any additional representatives, interestingly enough.) So changes in demographics per state can significantly influence an election over time.
Excellent article and summary, too, quoting Churchill's observation.
I recommend spending our efforts, instead ,on raising the voting age back to 21 or above.
(To tell our younger members: the voting age was 21 until the Vietnam war, when it was lowered to our draft age of 18.)
Now, we have no draft and indications are that college aged students and even older voters are not broad minded nor critically educated as to be ready to vote wisely to protect and to strengthen the USA. Simply voting is like falling off a log, but voting wisely with knowledge of the issues and for the good of our country should be our goal.
My proposal would be to debate raising the age to 25 or even 30.
By 30-35 most of us have matured out of our educational cocoons, have had military experience, pay taxes, have children, sought a competent and safe public school, are paying a mortgage, learned that politicians tell us one thing and do another. We have become much wiser voters.
So, what say ye?
21, 25, 30 or even 35 as a new voting age to protect and to strengthen our country?
Well, for starters, as a Pennsylvania resident, I wouldn't have to endure listening to the same commercials 5,000 times a day. Let the people in NY, MS, and every solid blue and red state suffer.
From reader Robert Zaller:
Can’t agree with you on this one, much as I like playing the contrarian myself. The Electoral College was a concoction partly to appease Southern states and partly from the Founders’ fear of democracy. No other state in the world copied it. Every election in the U.S. but one is a state or local one, and each is decided by majority vote; only that for the presidency is a national one, and in that alone a single election becomes fifty separate ones, each with its own rules. If India, with more than four times our population, recently concluded an election without fuss or controversy; with a single set of regulations and on the principle of one person, one vote, so can we.
From reader Eric Young:
I wonder how many more Republicans would show up in states like California in a popular vote scenario? I assume many just stay home, especially if they live in Northern California locations. As you correctly pointed out, there are essentially, unintended consequences to any system. Using a static model to simply assume that things would remain the same, vote-wise, in a popular vote scenario is a dubious assumption.
Here in Arizona, we have a lot of California residents moving here. They sell their homes there and can purchase a home for cash here that is nicer, larger, and less expensive than the one that they sold. I am sure that, in many cases, the move from California to Arizona, Texas, Florida, or NC, is due to economic and quality of life issues. What I find curious is that they vote for the same policies that caused them to leave in the first place. Arizona, once a solid red state, is now quite purple. California is losing Congressional representation to other states, namely Texas and Florida. (Arizona did not pick up any additional representatives, interestingly enough.) So changes in demographics per state can significantly influence an election over time.
Dan,
Excellent article and summary, too, quoting Churchill's observation.
I recommend spending our efforts, instead ,on raising the voting age back to 21 or above.
(To tell our younger members: the voting age was 21 until the Vietnam war, when it was lowered to our draft age of 18.)
Now, we have no draft and indications are that college aged students and even older voters are not broad minded nor critically educated as to be ready to vote wisely to protect and to strengthen the USA. Simply voting is like falling off a log, but voting wisely with knowledge of the issues and for the good of our country should be our goal.
My proposal would be to debate raising the age to 25 or even 30.
By 30-35 most of us have matured out of our educational cocoons, have had military experience, pay taxes, have children, sought a competent and safe public school, are paying a mortgage, learned that politicians tell us one thing and do another. We have become much wiser voters.
So, what say ye?
21, 25, 30 or even 35 as a new voting age to protect and to strengthen our country?
This is just a wild guess: By any chance, is your own age group included in your proposed electorate?
Well, for starters, as a Pennsylvania resident, I wouldn't have to endure listening to the same commercials 5,000 times a day. Let the people in NY, MS, and every solid blue and red state suffer.
Apparently, no one else saw fit to comment either.
Either no one's read this comment.
Or, everyone who has read this comment is big on critical thinking.
Me, too.