I've been giving this issue a lot of thought since the 2000 presidential election and I'm curious about what others think of the possibility of either eliminating or altering the Electoral College.
I understand why the authors of the constitution set up the system — essentially a two-fold attempt to give smaller states a somewhat larger voice in the election of presidents and an enticement for smaller territories to join the Union. It's essentially the same reason they created the Senate — an effort to equitably balance the power between the haves and have-nots.
However, I'm not sure the U.S. hasn't outgrown this system. And (although I'm sorely tempted), I won't use the argument that, with a popular election system, Al Gore would have probably been our president for the last seven years (at least four of them); we would have never gone to Iraq in the first place; many of the troops we have in Iraq would, instead, be in Afghanistan hunting Bin Laden and al-Queda; and we would have undoubtedly made significant strides in the area of global warming — specifically with signing on to the Kyoto agreement. Aside from the obvious and well publicized voting irregularities in that election, the reason Bush was able to win the Electoral College had a lot to do with clever GOP-backed redistricting intended to maximize Republican influence in both the House and the College. While that sad fact and the results of it are certainly disturbing, I'm not going to argue against the system based solely on that.
I simply think it's a matter that times have changed. The U.S. is not a loose confederation of 13 sovereign colonies, each with its own military, foreign ambassadors, etc., just as independent nations do today. Nor are we soliciting independent territories to join the Union to protect the sovereignty of the individual states from foreign invasion. The U.S. is, instead (for better or worse), a highly centralized government that happens to have 50 represented territories that are anything but sovereign.
Sure, Montana could pass a law that makes abortion illegal. The Supreme Court could overturn it (although probably not this one). Massachusetts could pass a law legalizing gay marriage. The Supreme Court could overturn it. We have Federal laws that undermine state rights about everything. I won't even to bother to list them because they are obvious. Remember, this is the same country that has two constitutional amendments addressing, of all things, alcohol consumption. Now, if that doesn't constitute a centralized government I don't know what does.
And, amazingly, it seems we actually want MORE centralization: Federal laws regarding marriage, Federal laws regarding abortion, Federal laws regarding healthcare, Federal laws regarding gun ownership, Federal laws regarding drugs, Federal laws regarding carbon emissions, etc., etc. I, personally, agree with some and disagree with others, but my point is the U.S. is a runaway train heading toward increased centralization from pretty heavy centralization, already. And, while I'm intrigued with and even support many Libertarian ideas, all of the Ron Pauls in the world are not going to stop this train.
So, that brings us back to the Electoral College. We live in a place with a highly centralized government — one that the founding fathers wouldn't even recognize. There is no longer any necessity for the College. I've heard GOP types suggest that if it was abolished some states would secede based on cultural, racial, religious, or political reasons. That's beyond ridiculous. Even with the current group of Supreme Court justices, Massachusetts (or whoever) isn't going to leave the U.S. based on something as mundane as not allowing them to issue marriage licenses to gay people. I'm not trying to diminish the issue, but I think we need to look at it in the broader context.
Bush (and every other president in recent memory) tells the world the U.S. wants to spread democracy. But we don't even live in a democracy. We live in sort of a hybrid federation/corporate republic based on the way our government functions (or dysfunctions) and the way we hold elections. Kind of a pseudo-democracy, I suppose, but not a true democracy. If we're going to dictate to the world what sort of governments they should have, we probably ought to get it right ourselves.
Interested in your thoughts.