In class we discussed how all candidates are “vote
maximizers”. However, because of the Electoral College system that we have in
place, there is an added layer of strategy to winning votes. The electoral
college upholds a “winner takes all” mentality, therefore the presidential
candidates will focus on states with more electoral votes than less, and more
on swing states such as Virginia or North Carolina. This can lead to emphasis
on specific policies that would affect those states, or even the creation of
policies that primarily benefit 1/50th of the nation.
Also, the electoral college votes are decided upon by
electors. As the article points out, “Americans do not vote directly for president. When voters cast a ballot for their preferred candidates, they are choosing their state's electors. As members of the Electoral College, those electors then the pick the president in December.” All of the sudden, it goes from a president that I voted for to a
president that someone I voted for, voted for. I find this process to further decrease the
value of my vote, which according to Johnson, the marginal benefit already deters me from
voting at all.
Since the candidates seeking vote maximizing is inevitable,
I think steps should be taken to ensure that those votes represent as much of
the country as possible, not just simple majority in individual states. Maybe we could use the Heisman trophy system, where if a state has 5 electoral votes, every 20% of the popular vote earns him an electoral vote. As
Buchanan and Tullock point out, when thinking about the group mentality, the
external cost is considered inevitable. The key is to choose a leader whose
external cost is the smallest for the most amount of people, and I don't believe that that is accurately portrayed by the electors.
No comments:
Post a Comment