Electoral College Part 3

Electoral College (Part 3)
Number 1 is below and 2 immediately preceeds.

To continue our analysis of alternatives, a direct election would lead to demagogic manipulation of the few largest population concentrations either ones that are geographically contiguous or those that are ideologically aligned. If a candidate can concentrate on a single issue, they can unite a majority almost every time.

Speaking of majority, does the direct election have to win a majority of the votes or only a plurality?  Would successive runoffs be required to eliminate those who achieve lower numbers, but preclude a majority for any other candidate? The prospect of fielding multiple competing candidates to dilute the opposition vote could also be contemplated by campaign managers. Had Trump lost, a portion of the blame would have been directed to the 16 other original candidates for diluting the opposition to the ultimate losing candidate. A stronger one might have emerged from a smaller original field. But that is moot.

If this election is viewed as “flawed” a runoff scenario in the direct election contest could very well arise. And keep looking at the county map of the country. For the past eight years the majority of the country has felt alienated and ignored. That largely provided the impetus for the “switch” in this election. And if the “majority” as defined by direct election prevailed, the current situation would possibly be perpetuated indefinitely.

The Electoral College has lent a cache and authority to the selection of Presidents over the years by periodically switching from one party to the other. And speaking of parties, the Parliamentary model also lends itself to a multiplication of minority parties. This may ostensibly give a “voice to the minorities” as they can unite in a coalition and take control.

But that same multiplicity of interests often splinters once the shindig is over and things fall apart. This leads to no confidence votes and the reorganization of the government as we have seen happen often in Canada and Great Britain. On the other hand Russia uses a direct election. It usually only has one viable candidate, so that simplifies things. But I digress.

The Electoral College is not designed to be democratic. It is representative. And treating it otherwise, yields the same results as Al Gore and Hillary Clinton have demonstrated. Obama widened his appeal, marginally, and was able to prevail, twice.

If the viewer ignores parties and political preferences he would marvel at the genius of this system. It is very difficult to “game;” it preserves a representative construct; and it usually provides a “mandate” for the winner. A razor thin plurality or even a deficit of the popular vote translates to a significant advantage in the final accounting of the electoral votes. This mandate constitutes a foundation from the new President can confidently proceed.

Some old time advice from an old time advocate: If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. And if it is broke because you lost, maybe you are the one who is broke.