Why the Electoral College Should Go
“It has been said that man is a rational animal. All my life I have been searching for evidence which could support this.”
This quote by the British author and philosopher Bertrand Russell summarizes much of the human condition. We are not generally logical and consistent creatures, and we need look no farther than Governor Mark Sanford’s social conservatism to prove this fact. The purpose of philosophy—at least in one respect—is to remedy humanity’s irrationality. Philosophy begins with a premise and explores the logical outcomes of that premise while informing our consciences. But what happens when a philosophy ceases to be rational? The conservative philosophy provides a case study of such a phenomenon.
The inconsistency within conservatism is subtle and involves two seemingly unrelated topics: the Electoral College and affirmative action. The conservative philosophy generally accepts the former as an indispensable part of American democracy and scoffs at the latter as “reverse discrimination.” Conservatives hail the Electoral College’s ability to protect geographic minorities while they decry affirmative action for its unfairness to accomplished majorities. But consider what these two issues have in common. In essence these two institutions aim to achieve the same end: the protection of minorities. In reality, it would be accurate to call the Electoral College “geographic affirmative action.”
To be clear, the Electoral College in its present form does protect geographic minorities by means of the winner-take-all feature that gives all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who wins the said state. If the College were not in place, elections would presumably be determined on the basis of national popular vote. This would encourage candidates to do the most campaigning in high-population areas, namely cities, and make those Americans living in low-population areas effectively geographic minorities whose votes are not quite as sought-after. The Electoral College prevents the formation of these geographic minorities by requiring that candidates win entire states, as opposed to only high-population areas. From this description, it is clear that the Electoral College has the same sort of intended effect that affirmative action does. And, if this is the case, it follows that the two institutions should either be categorically accepted or rejected. Accepting one and rejecting the other is inconsistent—and bad philosophy.
Why is it important that the conservative philosophy be a self-consistent one? Most importantly, any illogical philosophy cannot serve as an adequate guide to making decisions. But also it is important for a philosophy to be based on practicality and not on blind ideology. The fact that the philosophy is not self-consistent shows that we conservatives really do not quite understand our own position. Conservatives in general argue viewpoints that reflect common conservative beliefs, sometimes without true understanding of the debate. When this happens, conservatives gain both the stigma of hardheaded, cold-hearted, stagnated stubbornness and the actual characteristics the stigma entails.
In the affirmative action debate this phenomenon is especially evident. When President Obama wants to nominate an “empathetic” Supreme Court justice, the insinuation is clear. He values compassion over unquestioning conformity to a political orientation. The perception—which is not necessarily incorrect—is that the conservative position on affirmative action is based on impractical and self-concerned idealism. As conservatives, we need to consider why we oppose affirmative action and consider revising our positions instead of blindly following canned conservative beliefs and the arguments that come along with them. We must ask ourselves: if we, as conservatives, are not willing to give special status to minorities in the institution of affirmative action, why are we willing to give special status to minorities in the institution of the Electoral College?
The conservative position should be revised and based on its current affirmative action position. That is, giving special privileges to minorities is unfair and discriminatory to majorities. As a result of this assumption, it is clear that the conservative position on geographic affirmative action (i.e. the Electoral College) must change. We conservatives ought to join the ranks of those pulling for the end of the Electoral College.
However, it is important to realize that this change in advocacy would only benefit the conservative philosophy from an intellectual standpoint, whereas, in practicality, it would hurt the Republican Party. As it stands, Republicans do have at least a perceived vested interest in protecting geographic minorities. The prevailing wisdom is that Democratic Party strongholds are in large cities. Therefore, without the Electoral College, the rural minority will no longer be protected, giving cities—which are presumably more Democratic—a greater say in the election. The 2000 Presidential Election provides a case study for this fact. Had the Electoral College not been in place, the election would have gone to Democrat Al Gore, who won the popular vote.
But the true conservative philosophy should be impartial, for conservatism is more than a political orientation. In order for the conservative philosophy to be a reliable informer of our decisions, it must be logically sound. It cannot simultaneously support the Electoral College and reject affirmative action, and since it has already determined that the protection afforded to minorities by affirmative action is unfair to majorities, it must apply this assumption universally. Thus, the Electoral College should go.
Related posts:
