Perfect Election


  Back to politics page.



  Date: August, 2004

  The Electoral College was (supposedly) created because the founding fathers were concerned that American voters would not be wise enough to cast the right vote. Today, we have generally come to agree that it was not such a hot idea. We are committed to the idea that everyone should cast a vote, and that their votes shall be equally counted. Except for the fact that your vote counts differently in different states, which is another issue.
  But the bothersome question does remain: how can Americans be qualified to elect a President? A certain late-night TV comedian does a sketch where he walks out on the street and asks random people questions. It's really amazing how many people can't answer questions like: in what country do people speak French? So how can we expect people to consider the complex questions involved in choosing the next President?
  Let me suggest the following answer: even though Americans may not well informed, and not that educated, they will make exactly the right decision for the next President. It's a surprising statement. Am I asserting that the electorate has some magical powers?
  No magical powers required. President Reagan once framed the voting question as "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?" So the voting question is a question about change. Are you happy with the present government, or would you prefer a change? This point has to be modified slightly in view of the fact that a President may choose not to run again, or may be limited by term limits. Still, over most of the past several elections, the Presidential election has essentially posed the question of whether we are satisfied, or whether we seek change.
  Each voter will consider this question of change. Each voter will look in her pocketbook. Each voter will calculate the cost of his prescription drugs. Each voter will look at the environment outside her window. And each voter will make a decision.
  The current President may assert that tax cuts have put money in people's wallets. But the challenger may disagree. Economic statistics may be difficult to interpret. But let each voter judge for himself. In fact, without reading the newspapers and without going to college, the electorate can make a statement about the economy that is more accurate than all of the studies.
  How about the war in Iraq? Hundreds of thousands of troops have been mobilized. Many have been killed. Millions of people know these troops, and their families. So without reading the newspapers, again they can make a decision about what the war means to them.
  It is not clear whether the American electorate would make good decisions on individual issues. For example, take a poll on whether we should reform the CIA. Maybe Americans are not knowledgable on this subject, so such a poll would not be a good way to run our government. But, for a Presidential election, if the question reduces to the question that Ronald Reagan posed, the American people are better qualified than the most educated, well-read individuals to answer this question.
  One drawback to this method is that it causes the government to focus more on the short-term than on the long-term. For example, let's say the government gives citizens tax relief, by borrowing money and increasing the national debt. Perhaps the electorate will not notice. Or, let's say the government is corrupt and uses government for personal profit. An uninformed electorate will not detect this.
  Another point is that the voter's decision will represent the majority decision. Many historical examples will show that the majority opinion is not always the best. There are many mechanisms in our society to protect the minority from the will of the majority. Further, the majority opinion will not always coincide with my personal opinion. For example, I may be a strong advocate of the environment, but the electorate will select an anti-environmentalist President. So the majority opinion may be wrong, or it may not agree with my personal view. Still, I would argue that the electorate does make a decision that reflects the needs and values of the electorate over a complex range of issues.
  Because of the uninformed population, issues of character and trust can actually play an important role in an election. The electorate is stating that they don't have the time or inclination to study the details of government. So if the President is trustworthy, they feel confident that he will carry out good policy.
  So the next time someone complains about the ignorance of the American people, or about the idiotic nature of political ads, consider this hypothesis. The American electorate always makes the right choice. As my father always adds, that includes the popular vote in the 2000 election.