In defense of the Electoral College...?

Don't get me wrong. I agree that the Electoral College is an ancient and crusty institution that breeds opportunities for corruption and disenfranchises the vast majority of Americans. I lean towards thinking that it'd be a great thing to get rid of, if only it were plausible to amend the Constitution for procedural reasons, which it's not.

But... consider how campaigns would change if it were abolished, and why this half-assed institution was created in the first place.

If our presidents were elected by popular vote, the importance of national broadcast media would be vastly multiplied. Right now, Kerry can campaign energetically in a handful of states to counter the Swift Boat advertisements. When Kerry delivers stump speeches in Iowa, the Iowa media listen, and a lot of prospective voters do, too. What happens when no significant number of (enfranchised) voters ever gets to see Kerry in person? Doesn't this help hostile media forces depict him as a ridiculous caricature of pompous dishonesty? Doesn't this help the people who control the major news outlets (hint: not currently liberals) define the race in whatever terms they like?

Conversely, whistle-stop tours, rallies and face-to-face campaigning would become drastically less important. Right now, there is at least some slight hope that one of the candidates might actually speak to an undecided voter at a rally and change that voter's mind. If a voter in Iowa cares to educate himself, he has vast resources at his disposal. Both campaigns have made a first-class, spare-no-expense effort to present their policies to that voter in the best possible light, and he can see either man in person if he wants to. If the President were elected by popular vote, Iowans would be lucky to track down a dog-eared pamphlet at City Hall.

Do Iowans DESERVE to be treated like kingmakers while North Carolinians and Californians are neglected? Well, no. But would the popular vote reduce the level of engagement between (enfranchised) voters and their candidates? It surely would.

If the Electoral College were abolished, there would still be political rallies, but they sure wouldn't be held in Iowa. They would be held in high-profile cities and they would be elaborately staged, the better to generate headlines in the national media. What happens when every rally is basically a made-for-TV showpiece? I can't honestly say that the Democratic Party's best instincts were on display during the convention. I love Barack Obama, I love John Edwards, and I love John Kerry. But I don't love the triumph of campaign strategy over policy; I think it's a sad necessity at best and a broad road to Hell at the worst. The more the campaign is nationalized, the more pollsters and campaign hit-men will eclipse scholars and statesmen in setting the tone of national campaigns.

And finally, "battleground states" are "battleground states" precisely because the opinions of their voters are evenly divided. Do you find that political discourse is healthier in places with overwhelmingly Democratic or Republican electorates, where everyone who doesn't agree learns to keep quiet? Or are people forced to examine their opinions and beliefs most closely when their friends and neighbors are divided? "Battleground states" might actually be the best environments in which to stimulate a true contest of ideas. By contrast, if the Electoral College were abolished, it would suddenly be a hell of a lot more productive to whip up the Republican base in Texas and Arkansas than to try to sway a much smaller population of indecisive Floridians. In that scenario, GOTV (Get Out The Vote) triumphs decisively over WOTV (Win Over The Vote).

The original reason for the Electoral College is that the Constitution's framers didn't think the general public could learn enough about a national candidate to vote well. They believed "voting well" was a valid concept, that it was possible to "vote well" or "vote poorly" regardless of party affiliation, and that average folks didn't care enough about politics to vote well. And they had no interest in elevating the opinions of a disinterested majority over the beliefs of an educated, active, and dedicated minority.

Having said all that, I must confess that this is devil's advocacy at its worst. I think the Electoral College should probably go -- it simply robs too many voters of their right to influence presidential politics. But I'm not sure that a straight popular vote is a great idea, either. I wonder if some third option might rectify the worst problems with the Electoral College without simply transferring the vote from Iowans and Floridians to Fox News anchors.