Fifth in a series of essays I wrote about Election 2000, but never posted until now, just in time for Election 2002.
The word "chaos" has been with us for a long time but has acquired
specific scientific meaning of late. The study of chaos, a relatively
new field, specifically looks for patterns and categories of behavior
resulting from nonlinear systems. One of the first observations made
in this field, even before it had its name, can be paraphrased: In a
chaotic system, small perturbations in the input data can result in
drastically different output.
Now read that last sentence again, but in the context of the 2000
Presidential election. George W. Bush won the electoral college
271-267. Every single state he carried was crucial to his victory.
Had he lost even one of the five states in his column which contribute
the minimum three electoral votes, he would have lost the election.
The most closely contested of all the states, Florida, was ultimately
won by Bush with a margin of victory of 0.009% of the vote. If 0.009%
doesn't count as a "small perturbation," I don't know what does.
Compare this to the national popular vote, for what its worth (note
that every strategic decision made by both campaigns was designed to
maximize electoral votes, so its worth is debatable). Out of over 105
million ballots cast, Al Gore won by better than 0.5% of the vote.
The significant difference between Bush's Florida margin of victory
and Gore's national margin of victory is that the former is much less
than our ability (at the time) to accurately count votes, while the
latter is much greater. I estimate our national margin of error in
counting votes, using the technology in place in 2000, at
approximately 0.1%. In other words, an essentially random result in
Florida gave Bush the popular vote in that state, which in turn gave
him its 25 electoral votes, which in turn gave him the presidency. A
small perturbation in input data resulted in a drastically different
result, hence we can deduce that the electoral college is chaotic.
And we can come to this conclusion without even considering the court
battles that ensued after election day.
The all-or-nothing designation of electoral votes for most states is
an inherently nonlinear scheme, the first requirement of a chaotic
system. Consider if electoral votes were divided proportionatly. The
battle over Florida probably would have been over only one to three
electoral votes (depending on how you appropriate them) and most
likely would not have determined the outcome. Instead, the final
decision was left in the hands of a state which, in essence, couldn't
make up its mind.
The Electoral College, of course, is the United States' method of
electing a president, in which each state receives one elector for
each Representative (thus reflecting its population) and one elector
for its two Senators (thus giving smaller states a slightly heavier
weighting in the final voting). Each of the 50 states and the
District of Columbia decide the manner in which these electoral votes
are assigned, but all save two states award all of them to the winner
of the state's popular election. It is a reflection of our Founding
Fathers' compromise in setting up a Federal government consisting of
large- and small-population states, but also reflects a distrust in
the common citizen to elect his or her principal leader.
It is argued that any attempt to change the electoral college is
doomed to failure because the smaller states will not be willing to
give up their increased importance in the voting structure. The
reason this "increased importance" is vital is because it "ensures"
that presidential candidates cannot ignore the concerns of smaller
states. This is nonsense. In the 2000 presidential election,
campaigning occurred in only 13 "battleground" states, which ignored
all of the small states with the exception of New Mexico. The only
concern to the candidates was whether the polling in a given state
indicated that the race was close, thereby justifying campaign resources
to either maintain or obtain the lead. The other 37 states (and D.C.)
were completely ignored.
In a purely popular vote, the effect would be just the opposite. In
states in which polling indicated a large lead by one candidate, the
candidate who was behind might assume that there were local
misconceptions concerning his platform, and would campaign in those
states because it offers him the greatest opportunity to change
voters' minds. He wouldn't necessarily have to convince enough voters
to win the state's popular vote, just pick up as many converts as he
could. Every vote would count.
Would rural areas be ignored in favor of urban areas? Probably, but
to a lesser extent than they are now. Campaigning would be more
widespread, meaning a rural voter would have a better chance of the
candidates visiting a nearby urban area than with the current system.
Consider the change a popular vote would have on political
advertising. Instead of running local ads aimed at special interests,
candidates would get the most bang for their buck running national ads
concerning broader themes. Everyone (who watches television) would
get to see them and be more involved in the process.
A valid criticism of a popular vote for president has been raised
recently. It states that if a national election were as close as the
Florida election, the issues of different ballots, different
standards, and equal protection would again be raised, but on a much
grander scale. This is absolutely true. A uniform voting system
would have to be in place, or at least a collection of systems, each
of which would have to be able to guarantee significantly greater
accuracy than we currently tolerate.
7:40:01 PM 
|
|
