[Speed Gibson,
Thursday November 4, 2004 at 2:03pm]
Electoral College
The Star Tribune recently came out in favor of eliminating the Electoral College system, no doubt because this would favor their liberal candidates, but let's ignore that for this post.
On the surface, getting closer to one man, one vote seems attractive and logical in a democracy. But let's look at a related change, the 17th Amendment which provided for the direct election of Senators instead of by the State Legislatures. How well has that worked?
It would be difficult to grade this any higher than a C. At a minimum, many Senate seats have been "purchased" by wealthy candidates, such as John Edwards, John Corzine, Maria Cantwell, and our own Mark Dayton. Money doesn't always work (Huffington in California, e.g.), but it's the way to bet. The average Senate race now spends over $5 million dollars. The Thune/Daschle race was about $20 million.
We also get mavericks from time to time like Paul Wellstone. With all due respect to the late Senator, there were many better qualified choices from both parties available. Wellstone was personable, but so far left that his own party often couldn't reason with him. Then we have outright morons like Patrick Leahy. I suppose it's remotely possible that our Legislature could send a Sandy Pappas to the U.S. Senate, but few Legislators would opt to look so foolish assuming they wish to be re-elected.
I therefore conclude that popular election of U.S. Senators was a mistake, and by extension, so would eliminating the Electoral College. The latter gives ultimate authority to the Legislatures, which is why the SCOTUS intervention in 2000 was as unfortunate as unnecessary.
The Constitution had it right the first time. If anything, pass the amendment proposed by Professor Judith A. Best, binding the electors to their winning candidates, and requiring the winner-take-all concept be used by all of the states.
On the surface, getting closer to one man, one vote seems attractive and logical in a democracy. But let's look at a related change, the 17th Amendment which provided for the direct election of Senators instead of by the State Legislatures. How well has that worked?
It would be difficult to grade this any higher than a C. At a minimum, many Senate seats have been "purchased" by wealthy candidates, such as John Edwards, John Corzine, Maria Cantwell, and our own Mark Dayton. Money doesn't always work (Huffington in California, e.g.), but it's the way to bet. The average Senate race now spends over $5 million dollars. The Thune/Daschle race was about $20 million.
We also get mavericks from time to time like Paul Wellstone. With all due respect to the late Senator, there were many better qualified choices from both parties available. Wellstone was personable, but so far left that his own party often couldn't reason with him. Then we have outright morons like Patrick Leahy. I suppose it's remotely possible that our Legislature could send a Sandy Pappas to the U.S. Senate, but few Legislators would opt to look so foolish assuming they wish to be re-elected.
I therefore conclude that popular election of U.S. Senators was a mistake, and by extension, so would eliminating the Electoral College. The latter gives ultimate authority to the Legislatures, which is why the SCOTUS intervention in 2000 was as unfortunate as unnecessary.
The Constitution had it right the first time. If anything, pass the amendment proposed by Professor Judith A. Best, binding the electors to their winning candidates, and requiring the winner-take-all concept be used by all of the states.