In our last post we made the point that our current manner of selecting a chief executive officer was flawed and should be changed.
As promised, we have the solution and it is not new. It originally appeared in Sturbridge Times Magazine* of October of 2020
Save The Electoral College!
In September, we discussed the deficiencies of the current electoral system. They are many and the solution, as proposed by the great and good, scrapping the electoral college for a straight popular vote is a chimera. If instituted, it will solve none of the major problems. Money will still be the "mothers’ milk of politics," as a Democrat politician (Jesse Unruh) put it, with fundraising being as crucial, if not more so.
Party leaders will still decide who eventually gets to run, after the usual season of faux debates.
The big change is that larger states will have a bigger say with partisans of one of the major parties salivating at the prospect. Be careful what you wish for.
Is there a better way. We hope so. Our official think tank, The Long Hill Institute for the Salvation of a Forlorn System (The LHIftSoaFS for short) has come up with a plan for complete renovation of the process.
Up on our Hill, we know that recognizing a problem does not mean it will be solved no matter how pressing the crisis and wise the solution.
For those who question our sanity, we are aware, the Long Hill Plan has no hope of being adopted. Still, it is important to light a candle rather than curse the darkness as the cliché has it.
First, let us do away with a myth. No matter what we think about democracy, we don't care about the vote itself as much. In 2016, in a highly contentious election, less than 60% voted. Certainly, there are not a few pundits or academics who have theories, but to be trite, it is what it is and probably will not change.
Second, how important is it for you? Dick Vaughan has told me about his father who was a veteran of two world wars. Because of that service, his dad was adamant about his children's duty to vote as what we had was so important.
Well, I asked Dick on his cable TV show, if someone offered him several thousand dollars to refrain from casting a ballot would he take it? He admitted he would and that his dad was spinning in his grave.
If someone approached a line at the polls and took out cash and told each voter that they would pay them to not vote, we all know that at a certain sum most would take the money. From dog catcher to president, office-holders come and go, but covering bills or affording a vacation is the reality of now. Your columnist likes to think himself too high minded to succumb, but is fortunate to know he will probably never face this test.
There are two larger problems as regards the elections. First, we don't get truly great men to run.
People who loved Obama thought him godlike and the partisans of Trump are not shy in admiration as well. In the reverse, they accuse, depending on outlook, either Obama or Trump of unceasing imbecility. They are both merely men and one might grant a bit above the herd average, but maybe not the gods or devils as characterized.
This should not be fatal to the nation. A country with functioning constitution should work out well enough in the day to day. That is true in some smaller countries. It seems to have hit a speed bump here, or so the major media outlets opine.
The other big problem is that we, as a people, are not qualified to elect a president.
When we vote, we are, in the aggregate hiring someone to fill a job for four years. Hiring involves checking their qualifications to see that they match what is necessary.
Now, in making the point that most of us are not equipped to hire the person who will steer the ship of state, if the head of Mass General Hospital asked you to choose who would be the next chief of neurosurgery, and assuming that is not something you specialize in, you would, if sane, refuse. Your columnist knows he would.
Yet, when you mark your ballot, you are participating in hiring the employee who will command the armed forces, make treaties and choose the heads of the several departments of administration. The president also appoints ambassadors and sets the foreign policy.
There are other duties that have more or less accreted to the office over years that are not constitutionally required. For example, It says in the Constitution, "He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union." The form of that information was not defined. Before 1913, it was merely a written communication. Woodrow Wilson (a bad choice the people made) started addressing Congress.
The event has grown to the televised dog and pony show wherein the incumbent waxes poetic about the miracles performed. We can do without this bit of theater. It could be distilled to a letter to congress from the pres with one sentence: "I am doing an awesome job."
So how do we reform the system if we as a people are, in the main, unqualified to do the choosing?
The first thing would be to figure out what we are qualified to do. In truth, that may be nothing, but we have to try.
What I proposed to Dick Vaughan is that we should gather in caucuses the size of the town meetings of small municipalities. The caucuses should have only one task, to select the best person among them, no more than that.
Those chosen would go to the next caucus and select in the same manner. Massachusetts, as of the last census, has 6,547,629 people and has 11 in the electoral college. That works out to an elector to every 595,293 counted residents. It would probably be better to have a number of caucuses working out the best among them and whittle the number down before we get to the magic 11.
They will meet with those from the other states to make up a college of the 538 electors. Their job will be to select, not elect our chief executive. No one would be running for president.
This is crucial. The election process as it is now is corrupt beyond salvation. The amount of money raised is so vast that no one should believe it is ponied up for any other purpose than buying influence.
The men and women who have run and won and lost in this century seem to be narcissists and that would be understandable. It takes at least some conceit to believe oneself destined for greatness.
So, no one runs and money is gone. Money out of politics (particularly presidential) has been a mantra of good government types since I was a boy.
Our electoral college would have wide leeway to call in anyone in the country to be examined for the highest office. As the selection process, one would hope, has led to the best of all who caucused, we should hope they are more aware than the average and have some idea of people worthy to be president, but are not seeking office and have to be persuaded. We could go from "America, choose me, I am god-like" to "Oh all right, if I have to, I guess it's my duty."
The institution our electoral college would most resemble would be the College of Cardinals that chooses a pope. That group is cloistered away from the world during its process to avoid outside influence. Our College should do the same. Not that anyone in media, politics or finance would ever try to do something untoward.
Eventually, after due deliberation, the electors would announce the decision. We would have to live with the choice for at least a term, just like we do now.
When I first broached the subject with Dick Vaughan, he seemed ready to dismiss it. After some discussion, he warmed to the idea and invited me on his cable TV show (video below) to talk about it. Others, even if they can't endorse it, admit it is not as insane as they first thought. There is more to it than can be explained in a column.
Our method of finding a president has devolved for the worse since 1789. It is absurd to believe we find a wise statesman just by counting ballots. That does not mean the system will change for the better, but maybe it will go on no matter what.
As the German Chancellor Bismarck said: “God has a special providence for fools, drunkards, and the United States of America.”
*As mentioned in the last substack posting, The Sturbridge Times Magazine was a fine regional publication that perished in the pandemic.
** The late Dick Vaughan was a great old codger and my verbal sparring partner on Cable TV.
His great contribution to what is laughingly called Political Science is Vaughan's Law that he came up with after years in town and state government:
Vaughan's Law; There will always be a government, but nobody knows how to run a government.
Excellent!