Democracy, defeated.
(Photo from the New Yorker)
On Monday, members of the Electoral College will meet and
confirm Donald Trump as the President of the United States. There has been some
talk of unfaithful electors or some kind of protest vote, but it seems certain
that that Trump will get the necessary votes to become President.
This bothers me for all the reasons you might expect, but it
particularly bothers me because Donald Trump did not win the popular vote. As
in 2000, we are turning the whole country over to someone who does not
represent the will of the country as a whole. Last time, the vote totals were
so close that it was seen as a fluke. This time, it’s clear that we have a
problem: Hillary Clinton won by
nearly 3 million votes. That’s not close.
As the old saying goes: fool me once, shame on you. Fool me
twice, and Ben Carson becomes the Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development.
The last time we installed a second-place finisher in the
White House, the results were: 9/11 (ignoring or minimizing presidential
briefings), the Iraq war (cherry-picking intelligence to push a preferred—and
false—narrative), and the worst economic downturn in the lifetimes of most
Americans (relaxing regulations and pursuing policies that favor the rich over
the middle class). We also saw completely
unqualified people appointed to positions such as the head of FEMA.
Does that approach to governance sound familiar?
I don’t pretend we can undo the results of this election. And I understand that most Americans would rather not dwell on this unpleasant state of affairs. But I’m surprised there isn’t more of an outcry here. Once again, the American people are meekly accepting an election that doesn’t reflect the will of the governed. Clinton won the vote by more than two percentage points. She gathered more votes than any presidential candidate not named Barack Obama.
I don’t pretend we can undo the results of this election. And I understand that most Americans would rather not dwell on this unpleasant state of affairs. But I’m surprised there isn’t more of an outcry here. Once again, the American people are meekly accepting an election that doesn’t reflect the will of the governed. Clinton won the vote by more than two percentage points. She gathered more votes than any presidential candidate not named Barack Obama.
Yet we are preparing for the inauguration of Donald Trump.
Other writers have outlined the history and purpose of the
Electoral College. My belief is that no matter how firmly entrenched this
system is, it has been clearly demonstrated as contradictory to the spirit of
the American democratic experiment, and manifestly damaging to our country.
No other election in our system is run this way. Governors, senators, representatives, mayors—all are elected by popular vote. Only in the most important election do we turn to an arcane system that gives some voters more power than others.
No other election in our system is run this way. Governors, senators, representatives, mayors—all are elected by popular vote. Only in the most important election do we turn to an arcane system that gives some voters more power than others.
It is argued that this system allows rural, smaller states
to have a say in the presidential election. That if we went by popular vote,
only states with large, urban areas would be paid attention to by candidates,
and that policies would then favor those living in the big cities.
As someone who lives in an urban area, that sounds like a
nice change to me. But the truth is that in 2016, there were only a handful of
states that the candidates paid attention to anyway. Florida and Ohio got dozens of visits from the candidates.
Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Michigan were also frequent stops.
All of these states have rural areas. All of them have urban areas—which is where nearly all the campaign stops were held. California also has both rural and urban voters. The Golden State is one of the most important agricultural states in the country. Yet it, like so many other states, didn’t receive campaign visits from the candidates.
All of these states have rural areas. All of them have urban areas—which is where nearly all the campaign stops were held. California also has both rural and urban voters. The Golden State is one of the most important agricultural states in the country. Yet it, like so many other states, didn’t receive campaign visits from the candidates.
California is also widely credited with giving Clinton her
winning margin. It didn’t matter. The election was decided before California’s
votes were even counted. But Clinton’s totals reflect the will of the entire
country; voters from Maine to Hawaii, who clearly preferred her over Donald
Trump. That nearly three-million-vote margin was irrelevant, though. Even when it
was not that close, second place got the trophy.
I believe we need to re-emphasize the concept of “one
person, one vote.” That principle has been a cornerstone for our democracy—or
republic, if you prefer. People have died for that principle. The U.S. Supreme
Court has many times ruled that the doctrine is in keeping with the equal
protection clause of the Constitution.
Yet twice now in recent history, some votes have counted for
more than others, thanks to the Electoral College. The will of the people was
not recognized in 2000, and again in 2016. We need to ask ourselves, what does
our country stand for, if not democracy?
I believe we are seeing a power struggle for the soul of the
country. We’re seeing it in places like North Carolina, where voting districts
are gerrymandered to give Republicans voters more weight at the polls—and where
the Republican lawmakers voted in by that twisted system just held a special
session to strip the incoming Democratic governor of some of his powers.
We’re seeing it places like Michigan, where in 2014 and 2016, Democrats received more votes in state house races, yet Republicans hold a strong majority of seats. How? As a writer in the Detroit Metro Times reported: “Republicans redrew the state's 110 state legislative districts in 2010 in such a way that Democratic voters are herded into a small number of districts. The majority of Republican voters, conversely, are spread among a much larger number of districts.”
We’re seeing it places like Michigan, where in 2014 and 2016, Democrats received more votes in state house races, yet Republicans hold a strong majority of seats. How? As a writer in the Detroit Metro Times reported: “Republicans redrew the state's 110 state legislative districts in 2010 in such a way that Democratic voters are herded into a small number of districts. The majority of Republican voters, conversely, are spread among a much larger number of districts.”
In addition, there’s the voter-suppression wave that has
swept Republican-controlled states. When our country becomes a place where some
voters count for more than others, where votes are suppressed and voters walled
off into gerrymandered ghettos to reduce their power, we stop being a democracy. And if you want to call it a Republic, please recognize we're on the verge of creating a system that favors certain classes and races over others. That is
not what America should be.
This flawed state of affairs should not be acceptable. It
should not be shrugged off as, “that’s the way the system works.” The system is
obviously not working. In this election, it did not honor the principle of one
person, one vote. In the United States, democracy was defeated in 2016.
