jetjunky
New member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2019
- Messages
- 3
- Reaction score
- 0
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Following the 2016 US presidential election, where Hilary Clinton lost to Donald Trump despite winning the popular vote, many Democrats are clamoring for an abolishment of the Electoral College.
The Electoral College has both good points and bad points; chief among the bad is that small population rural states have more power per voter than larger more urbanized states. This aspect of the system is both unfair and indefensible.
Alternatively, some positive aspects of the system should not be ignored. Firstly this form of election in the US demands a broad appeal to ensure election. No one region of the nation has enough Electoral College votes to win an election, a candidate needs support from the Northeast, the West, the Midwest and the South to win. This makes a region specific candidate unlikely to win and requires prospective candidates to reach out and appeal to a broad base across the nation.
Secondly, this structure discourages a multi party system and favors a two party system. It would be a mistake to assume if the Electoral College were abolished tomorrow that the current two major parties would continue as they are in the future. It is an inevitability that both these parties would fracture into separate interest groups and result in a multi party system.
Most democracies in the world today are multi party. Most examples include two to five medium sized parties, none of which have enough votes to govern alone and so require a coalition to form a government.
The impact of the evolution towards a multiparty system in the US differs for either of the two major parties that exist today. Currently the Republican Party support base is a fairly homogeneous group when compared to the Democratic base. This contrast will result in different outcomes following the abolishment of the Electoral College. Political parties are formed by different ideological groups and ideas. As the Democratic Party represents a more diverse collection of ideas and beliefs it is more likely to fracture into separate niche splinter parties than say the Republican party that is far more homogeneous. Although following the Trump era, the GOP could split into perhaps two major factions, one being more right wing and the other perhaps more centrist.
In this future post Electoral College US with multiple parties, it is unlikely that any single faction would have sufficient support to govern alone. This would require a coalition of two or more parties to gain a majority. Closely aligned parties may work well together and thus have a strong, stable alliance. However, when out of desperation to govern an alliance of less well aligned parties may form. Down the line this may lead to major problems.
A small party that holds a critical number of seats (an amount that grants the larger party enough seats to govern) is known as a “king maker” and can often hold a lot more power than their seat allocation suggests. Due to the complete reliance by the larger party on the smaller party’s’ support for them to remain in power, the smaller party can impose demands, sometimes unreasonable ones, on the larger party as a reward for their continued support. This can result in concessions and compromises by the larger party that could in fact be at odds to promises they made in their election campaign.
The greed for power and desperation to govern can be very consuming and take up a disproportionately large portion of time in such an environment. The stability afforded by a two party system must not be overlooked. More voices in a government cannot be seen as a bad thing however the system is more dynamic and has many more distractions than the current system.
Many, many members of government, candidates, political analysts, the media, you name it assume that the current political landscape consisting two major parties will simply continue without an Electoral College. That is very unlikely to happen. A better solution to the current situation would be to perhaps amend the Electoral College as it now stands. Eliminating the imbalance between states would be good first step. Another aspect that should receive attention is the winner takes all approach. Democrats in Texas and Republicans in California have less incentive to vote currently when compared to voters in the swing states. Proportional allocation of Electoral Votes is a possible solution to this.
The system is flawed and does need attention to eliminate the unfairness that currently surrounds it. However the good aspects of the system should not be ignored as neither should the implications of the systems complete abolishment. We do indeed live in interesting times.
The Electoral College has both good points and bad points; chief among the bad is that small population rural states have more power per voter than larger more urbanized states. This aspect of the system is both unfair and indefensible.
Alternatively, some positive aspects of the system should not be ignored. Firstly this form of election in the US demands a broad appeal to ensure election. No one region of the nation has enough Electoral College votes to win an election, a candidate needs support from the Northeast, the West, the Midwest and the South to win. This makes a region specific candidate unlikely to win and requires prospective candidates to reach out and appeal to a broad base across the nation.
Secondly, this structure discourages a multi party system and favors a two party system. It would be a mistake to assume if the Electoral College were abolished tomorrow that the current two major parties would continue as they are in the future. It is an inevitability that both these parties would fracture into separate interest groups and result in a multi party system.
Most democracies in the world today are multi party. Most examples include two to five medium sized parties, none of which have enough votes to govern alone and so require a coalition to form a government.
The impact of the evolution towards a multiparty system in the US differs for either of the two major parties that exist today. Currently the Republican Party support base is a fairly homogeneous group when compared to the Democratic base. This contrast will result in different outcomes following the abolishment of the Electoral College. Political parties are formed by different ideological groups and ideas. As the Democratic Party represents a more diverse collection of ideas and beliefs it is more likely to fracture into separate niche splinter parties than say the Republican party that is far more homogeneous. Although following the Trump era, the GOP could split into perhaps two major factions, one being more right wing and the other perhaps more centrist.
In this future post Electoral College US with multiple parties, it is unlikely that any single faction would have sufficient support to govern alone. This would require a coalition of two or more parties to gain a majority. Closely aligned parties may work well together and thus have a strong, stable alliance. However, when out of desperation to govern an alliance of less well aligned parties may form. Down the line this may lead to major problems.
A small party that holds a critical number of seats (an amount that grants the larger party enough seats to govern) is known as a “king maker” and can often hold a lot more power than their seat allocation suggests. Due to the complete reliance by the larger party on the smaller party’s’ support for them to remain in power, the smaller party can impose demands, sometimes unreasonable ones, on the larger party as a reward for their continued support. This can result in concessions and compromises by the larger party that could in fact be at odds to promises they made in their election campaign.
The greed for power and desperation to govern can be very consuming and take up a disproportionately large portion of time in such an environment. The stability afforded by a two party system must not be overlooked. More voices in a government cannot be seen as a bad thing however the system is more dynamic and has many more distractions than the current system.
Many, many members of government, candidates, political analysts, the media, you name it assume that the current political landscape consisting two major parties will simply continue without an Electoral College. That is very unlikely to happen. A better solution to the current situation would be to perhaps amend the Electoral College as it now stands. Eliminating the imbalance between states would be good first step. Another aspect that should receive attention is the winner takes all approach. Democrats in Texas and Republicans in California have less incentive to vote currently when compared to voters in the swing states. Proportional allocation of Electoral Votes is a possible solution to this.
The system is flawed and does need attention to eliminate the unfairness that currently surrounds it. However the good aspects of the system should not be ignored as neither should the implications of the systems complete abolishment. We do indeed live in interesting times.