I was thinking about the movement for national popular vote election of the president. I can't say I oppose it, because changing the voting mechanism for one office doesn't matter one way or the other. Frankly, the two systems will produce identical results most time. When it doesn't, its a very close election.
There are arguments made by the side I wanted to discuss. Hopefully, if you support changing to national vote, we can strengthen your arguments.
1) Its un-democratic.
There are other principles more important than democracy. Cultures have to balance these. Other organizations of sovereign groups do not use direct voting. The European Commission and the other bodies of European Union use multiple method to form it. I don't think any of the leadership positions are elected by direct European vote. The UN doesn't use popular vote to determine number of seats or elect the Secretary General.
Sovereign nations have interests as a whole that needs to be represented. When we think of the role of the president, and the role of the UN and EU, they have similar responsibilities. Economic policy and foreign policy are things states have an interest in that is larger than the proportion of population in its borders.
2) Elections only focus on the battleground states. A national election would make politicians campaign everywhere.
If it changes, the goal of politicians is to still get elected. Even if a national vote, huge swaths of the country do not matter. Efforts will focus on turning independents and getting out the vote of people who are party loyalists. There may be more stops, but most of the new contact is incidental and simply doesn't matter. The time of politicians stopping in cities and debating each other is dead. Its a "Dumb" strategy. Thanks to computing, we are discovering the smart" strategies that actually matter.
There are arguments made by the side I wanted to discuss. Hopefully, if you support changing to national vote, we can strengthen your arguments.
1) Its un-democratic.
There are other principles more important than democracy. Cultures have to balance these. Other organizations of sovereign groups do not use direct voting. The European Commission and the other bodies of European Union use multiple method to form it. I don't think any of the leadership positions are elected by direct European vote. The UN doesn't use popular vote to determine number of seats or elect the Secretary General.
Sovereign nations have interests as a whole that needs to be represented. When we think of the role of the president, and the role of the UN and EU, they have similar responsibilities. Economic policy and foreign policy are things states have an interest in that is larger than the proportion of population in its borders.
2) Elections only focus on the battleground states. A national election would make politicians campaign everywhere.
If it changes, the goal of politicians is to still get elected. Even if a national vote, huge swaths of the country do not matter. Efforts will focus on turning independents and getting out the vote of people who are party loyalists. There may be more stops, but most of the new contact is incidental and simply doesn't matter. The time of politicians stopping in cities and debating each other is dead. Its a "Dumb" strategy. Thanks to computing, we are discovering the smart" strategies that actually matter.
via JREF Forum http://ift.tt/Qvyr0P
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire