Great review Patrick. Rather enjoyed it as much as the interviews with Ezra about this book. In the spirit of polarization, I would like to counter punch your recommendation for solutions to this problem, most notably the electoral college. We have seen a heavy drumbeat of support for abolishing the electoral college ever since the 2016 election by folks on the left of the spectrum. A drumbeat that was not nearly as loud as before the election, suggesting that the party that has 14million more registered voters is trying to change the system to a more conventional, true majoritarian democracy not because it is a better functioning system,…but because it brings obvious political advantages to the more populated party. As you can tell, I’m suspicious of the motivations of people who say this is a no brainer to change the electoral college. To proper understand the electoral college, we have to appreciate the purpose and the effect of the institution itself. The purpose of the electoral college was to lay down another system of checks and balances on majoritarian rule, which went along with the general theme of safeguards enacted to slow the tyranny of majoritarian rule. The original architects of this system did NOT want this to occur – a big, fast moving federal government that overshadowed all other systems of governance, witnessed in Europe at the time. The electoral college is consistent with this framework of slowing down the accumulation of power at the federal level. This is important to note.
The effect in 2020 is that the electoral college provides some semblance of reshaping the balance of power. Without citing evidence, just going off the cuff here, one particular political party controls and sometimes dominates the following spheres of society. Economic, cultural, social, and voters numbers. And perhaps this is something we can disagree on – my premise here is that most of the economic power of this country has shifted from rural areas to urban areas. Think of the growing and powerful cities in America driving the economy. Culturally, the media and Hollywood lean strongly in the same political direction. Socially, we’ve seen the waning influence of religious institutions and nuclear families along with rampant opiate drug abuse ravage many rural communities. And in terms of voting numbers, one party is dominating the registered voter ranks and will continue to build its lead for years to come. The electoral college allows for the last sphere of influence, political power, to be balanced. Majoritarian rule threatens to take away this last sphere of influence to create a great imbalance of power in this country, the very thing that the founders wanted to avoid. If the electoral college falls, then a single party could likely dominate the presidency, the house, eventually the senate, and then eventually the supreme court, giving the party exclusive political, cultural, social, and economic control of the country.
The 2016 election was close enough where if one or a small number of numerous factors had bounced Clinton’s way, she would have won the presidency. Again, we wouldn’t the same intensity from the left to change the “broken” system if Clinton had won. A few other things to consider. Despite the Democrats losing power at the federal level, it still has a great amount of power in this country. They completely control power in the state of California, the fifth largest economy in the world. If Democrats are worried that they can’t implement policy legislation at the federal level, they still have the opportunity to implement at the state level. Far from the original vision of the founders, this country has mistakenly paid too much attention to the power of the federal government, and not enough focus is placed at the local and state levels. Wouldn’t it be great if California could be the laboratory of democracy for the folks on the left? We then could see if all the top down legislative proposals to create a more equal society actually works. The Democrats have much more power than they think they have, its just a matter of whether they want to exercise it or not.
The last thing to consider is the great campaigning advantage one party would have over the other if we went to a straight vote. Considering the migration of folks from rural areas to urban cities over the past 200+ years, there is an important logistical advantage for the party that controls the cities. In a few weeks, the democratic candidate can campaign and move between cities quickly picking up millions of votes. It takes the candidate of the rural party many months to pick up the same votes going from country to county. In effect, the electoral college levels out the campaigning playing field.
One last thing, this somewhat complicated and mixed system of governance we have in the United States does actually support majoritarian rule currently. For a good portion of states, powerful tools like referendums allow for majority rule. We often have more pure democracy in this country at the local levels of government in this country because local politics is more responsive and faster than the deliberately slow and grinding machine at the federal level. And that’s the way it should be, just as the founders intended.
Good,...I've been reading up a bit more on the electoral college, I may be more entrenched in my stance now. It will be interesting to see if you can move me! On your article about impeaching trump, I was going to quibble about him being a weak (low influence) president,...I think the premise is right, but his ability (along with McConnell) to stack the courts with conservative judges will turn out to be big. Everything else with him being weak I can get behind because so much can be reversed,...but the court stacking is big. If you are looking for additional topics, maybe you can explain why Trump is still favored to beat Biden in the betting pools.
Court stacking is definitely quite consequential. Isn't it something that 25% of federal judges have been appointed by Trump? And the most striking and consequential is that the median age of the circuit judges is 48.
Great review Patrick. Rather enjoyed it as much as the interviews with Ezra about this book. In the spirit of polarization, I would like to counter punch your recommendation for solutions to this problem, most notably the electoral college. We have seen a heavy drumbeat of support for abolishing the electoral college ever since the 2016 election by folks on the left of the spectrum. A drumbeat that was not nearly as loud as before the election, suggesting that the party that has 14million more registered voters is trying to change the system to a more conventional, true majoritarian democracy not because it is a better functioning system,…but because it brings obvious political advantages to the more populated party. As you can tell, I’m suspicious of the motivations of people who say this is a no brainer to change the electoral college. To proper understand the electoral college, we have to appreciate the purpose and the effect of the institution itself. The purpose of the electoral college was to lay down another system of checks and balances on majoritarian rule, which went along with the general theme of safeguards enacted to slow the tyranny of majoritarian rule. The original architects of this system did NOT want this to occur – a big, fast moving federal government that overshadowed all other systems of governance, witnessed in Europe at the time. The electoral college is consistent with this framework of slowing down the accumulation of power at the federal level. This is important to note.
The effect in 2020 is that the electoral college provides some semblance of reshaping the balance of power. Without citing evidence, just going off the cuff here, one particular political party controls and sometimes dominates the following spheres of society. Economic, cultural, social, and voters numbers. And perhaps this is something we can disagree on – my premise here is that most of the economic power of this country has shifted from rural areas to urban areas. Think of the growing and powerful cities in America driving the economy. Culturally, the media and Hollywood lean strongly in the same political direction. Socially, we’ve seen the waning influence of religious institutions and nuclear families along with rampant opiate drug abuse ravage many rural communities. And in terms of voting numbers, one party is dominating the registered voter ranks and will continue to build its lead for years to come. The electoral college allows for the last sphere of influence, political power, to be balanced. Majoritarian rule threatens to take away this last sphere of influence to create a great imbalance of power in this country, the very thing that the founders wanted to avoid. If the electoral college falls, then a single party could likely dominate the presidency, the house, eventually the senate, and then eventually the supreme court, giving the party exclusive political, cultural, social, and economic control of the country.
The 2016 election was close enough where if one or a small number of numerous factors had bounced Clinton’s way, she would have won the presidency. Again, we wouldn’t the same intensity from the left to change the “broken” system if Clinton had won. A few other things to consider. Despite the Democrats losing power at the federal level, it still has a great amount of power in this country. They completely control power in the state of California, the fifth largest economy in the world. If Democrats are worried that they can’t implement policy legislation at the federal level, they still have the opportunity to implement at the state level. Far from the original vision of the founders, this country has mistakenly paid too much attention to the power of the federal government, and not enough focus is placed at the local and state levels. Wouldn’t it be great if California could be the laboratory of democracy for the folks on the left? We then could see if all the top down legislative proposals to create a more equal society actually works. The Democrats have much more power than they think they have, its just a matter of whether they want to exercise it or not.
The last thing to consider is the great campaigning advantage one party would have over the other if we went to a straight vote. Considering the migration of folks from rural areas to urban cities over the past 200+ years, there is an important logistical advantage for the party that controls the cities. In a few weeks, the democratic candidate can campaign and move between cities quickly picking up millions of votes. It takes the candidate of the rural party many months to pick up the same votes going from country to county. In effect, the electoral college levels out the campaigning playing field.
One last thing, this somewhat complicated and mixed system of governance we have in the United States does actually support majoritarian rule currently. For a good portion of states, powerful tools like referendums allow for majority rule. We often have more pure democracy in this country at the local levels of government in this country because local politics is more responsive and faster than the deliberately slow and grinding machine at the federal level. And that’s the way it should be, just as the founders intended.
Thank you for this thoughtful reply. I will reply to it in an upcoming newsletter.
Looking forward to it!
Look for my response in the next newsletter, probably coming put some time within the next 7 days or so.
Good,...I've been reading up a bit more on the electoral college, I may be more entrenched in my stance now. It will be interesting to see if you can move me! On your article about impeaching trump, I was going to quibble about him being a weak (low influence) president,...I think the premise is right, but his ability (along with McConnell) to stack the courts with conservative judges will turn out to be big. Everything else with him being weak I can get behind because so much can be reversed,...but the court stacking is big. If you are looking for additional topics, maybe you can explain why Trump is still favored to beat Biden in the betting pools.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/elections/betting_odds/2020_president/
Court stacking is definitely quite consequential. Isn't it something that 25% of federal judges have been appointed by Trump? And the most striking and consequential is that the median age of the circuit judges is 48.
I might tackle your last question; we'll see.