At the heart of the current fight between the Trump administration and the Democratic party is the dispute about the legitimacy of electing a President that lost the popular vote.
Instead of trying to win through impeachment (as the GOP in opposition tried also with Clinton) or reforming the Constitution -which the Framers wisely designed to preserve smaller states right and requires an almost impossible two thirds majority- there is a simpler and fairer way: turning the election of states delegates for the Electoral College from "winner-takes-all" to some proportional system (I suggest checking the Swiss D'Hontd system also known in US as the Jefferson method)
If each state were able to allocate electors for both parties in a proportional way there will be immediate benefits for both those who want a more "democratic" election and for those wot want a more "state-rights" representative one:
- Both states rights and majority rule would be better protected
- The reality of "purple" states (almost all) would be better reflected
- Candidates should campaign and visit all 50 states more often and more likely
- Voters in small and large states would feel treated more fairly.
- There would be less interest in using impeachment to uphold "legitimacy" claims, and less sore losers.
Who would have been elected if implemented in past elections? Just take a look and make up your mind. You might want also to check the Jefferson method.
Notice that in all close elections (2000, 2016) third parties would have made also a difference by becoming "king-makers" and forming coalitions.
That would also give those outside the two-party system more relevance and dilute extreme partisanship.
Rule of thumb: you know the system is fair when no partisan soul is happy with it.
No comments:
Post a Comment