How the Electoral College Fails Us All

A Guide to Minority Rule

After my previous post regarding how the Electoral College encourages behavior counter to majority rule, I discovered this article by Corey Robin. It in the author states that the current assault on our democracy didn’t start last year, or even in the last 10 years. It started 50 years ago with the passing of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. We got where we are today not because of modern-day polarization, but by majority rule being inequitable to the two dominate political parties over the last half century.

As stated in the article, the minority rule has always been enshrined in the US Political system from the outset. In general, democracies that have both a representation-by-population entity (The House of Representatives) and an equal representation regardless of population entity (The Senate) do not put equal power to both branches of the legislature. It is a recipe for disaster, as current senate representation allows Wyoming to have each individual citizen’s votes be equal to 67 voters in the state of California. In every other democracy an upper house is a check-and-balance against the lower house: In the US political system they are both on equal footing.

Why is representation in the Senate different in other countries? In Canada, the UK, and other democracies the Senate is not voted into power, but rather appointed with an age-limited term. They do not have to shape laws that equate to a popular-but-minority-oriented part of the population to ensure re-election. They must agree to do what is right for the country as a whole. Also, their powers to shape legislation completely exist within the bounds of controlling legislation originating from the lower house. Simply put, because they are not elected to office they aren’t bound to a constituency nor to popular vote.

The systems of government in Canada and many other democracies are modelled after the House of Lords in the UK. The US is the only democracy that doesn’t follow this pattern. The electability of the senate seemed to be a great step forward for the founding fathers, believing it ensured that senators didn’t represent their own self-interest. In reality that has not occurred.

The 1965 Voting Rights Act

The passing of the Voting Rights Act in 1965 hearkened a massive change in how US elections were managed. States were no longer allowed to create laws that discriminated against voters by race. It enshrined the 15th Amendment to the Constitution into the electoral system, removing barriers to voters such as literacy test and other discriminatory activities.

Specifically, the Voting Rights Act Section 5 states that states with histories of discriminatory voting had to prove to the Federal Government that new laws didn’t discriminate against voters of color. There was bipartisan opposition to this section, including Ronald Reagan who stated it was “humiliating to Southern States”. This onus on the states to show a lack of discrimination isn’t new: 3 times over the last 35 years the republican party as opposed renewing the laws or amendments to the laws.

There is a simple reason for this: At differing times in the last 50 years it has been the stance of difference political parties to try to limit the vote. Although Republican gerrymandering is the most obvious current iteration of this, democratic gerrymandering and limiting or segmenting voters has always been part of both parties’ strategy over the last 100 years. Simply put, if you can stop the other side’s voters from voting while maintaining your voters’ rights you win elections.

Devaluing the Value of 1 Person 1 Vote

Representation by Population was always the goal of the founding fathers, to the point of them developing an electoral system that attempts to ensure every vote is equal to every other vote. But in both house of Congress that isn’t true. As stated above, the Senate actually works in opposition to that concept. However, all elected officials are complicit in devaluing your vote.

As stated in a previous blog, 12 states comprised over 95% of the campaign funds spend in 2020, and those same 12 states comprised 100% of the presidential campaign events. If you were in Montana, Hawaii, or Arkansas very little attention is paid to solidly non-partisan states. A battleground state is now a state with less than a 3% difference in the polling for the presidential vote. If you are above 3% you simply receive no attention during the election.

This is harmful to the concept of 1 vote for 1 person because the votes in those states are nullified. The outcome is assumed to be predictable, and therefore there is no impetus for change. You may see state and local coverage for lower-level elections, but a candidate in a state with solid backing needs to do as little as possible to bring attention that could backfire on him. Simply put, non-battleground state votes aren’t worth the same as battleground states.

The best example of this is Joe Manchin. He ran on a democratic platform that included better jobs in his state and tax reform to hold the rich accountable for their fair share of taxes. However, when those issues came up in the senate he opposed the democratic agenda. His state, with a population under 2 million residents, currently holds up legislation that affects all 329 million Americans, mostly because of his opposition to climate change efforts that would significant impact his state.

However, New York State, with a population of slightly under 20 million (10 times West Virginia) with a senator that was elected on a platform of climate and tax reform, cannot overcome the Joe Manchin opposition to his own party’s platform to try to avert a climate disaster that would affect New York City and it’s 8.5 million residents.

New York’s voters have less influence in the Senate than a state with 1/10th it’s population. Representation by Population fails because the Senate cannot pass a bill that could solidly pass in the House because 1 member currently holds all the power of the Senate.

Lastly, current voters rights laws being written after 2020 are specifically being designed to discriminate against specific voter demographics. Although voter ID laws are fought in ways that make them seem more harmful than they are, the access to the ability to vote is being re-written with rules that generally favor white voters. Reducing the number of polling locations in large, generally black or Latino communities is one methodology. In the inner cities, which also tend to be more racially diverse and have a lower average income, voting times are being limited specifically to hinder voters with 9 to 5 jobs. Lastly, partisan gerrymandering is used to manipulate voting districts that allow incumbent candidates gather together large swaths of their voters while piling huge numbers of the oppositions voters into combined districts. (Look at the district maps of Texas for a great example of how Dallas and Fort Worth are gerrymandered, particularly the 33rd district.)

What is the Solution

It would be simple to say that the solution is to eliminate the Electoral College. It is a fast way to avoid the loser of the popular vote winning the presidency, which has happened twice in the last 20 years. However, deeper analysis needs to be completed to understand how to fix the power-sharing between the House and the Senate. Non-partisan groups must be involved in building voting districts, which becomes more difficult every day as there are less and less non-partisan groups. Lastly, voting laws need to be more uniform across states to avoid California’s laws to be significantly different than Texas laws. Rank-Choice voting is not the answer and is harmful to the overall outcome.

So the solution isn’t a tweak on a 250 year old failed project. It’s looking deep into the core of the issues and resolving them instead of band-aiding the symptoms. It involves less performance artist legislators (thank you Dan Crenshaw) and more educated and dedicated legislators looking to protect America. It involves understanding that, without these problems being talked about and resolved, every election go forward creates a higher chance of another civil war.

A Quick Statement

I am not a Democrat. I also am not supportive of the current GOP. I am a conservative without a party. Simply put, I am a vocal centralist. I try to stay out of partisan name-calling in this blog, and try to talk about the facts. However, with the anniversary of January 6th upon us don’t be surprised if I lean left for a bit. Simply put, Qanon, the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, and the other terrorists of that day are indefensible.

If you have a problem with this, please feel free to not read my blog.