Electoral College

I'm taking Constitutional Law this semester, and have declared war on it. Usually when I haul out the war declaration paperwork, it's because I hate the class, but in this case, it's because I cannot seem to get my law brain engaged; I know how to read for Law Knowledge...paying attention to everyone who says anything, reading for concept AND opinion, etc., but for whatever reason, I cannot seem to get going, so I declared war on it.

Seriously, people, I got a 30 on my first quiz. Raise your hand if you think I'm actually that dumb.

The course is kind of a "Constitutional Law...with a twist!" kind of scene. We're going to be looking at the Constitution and how it's shaped law and government, then seeing how all that good stuff syncs up with current Constitutional issues like those at hand in Guantanamo Bay, with wiretapping, etc. The Professor is interested in that stuff, and it shows. Today, he handed out an article about how Democrats are squabbling (...I KNOW! So unusual and exciting!) about the superdelegates. For those who have been under a rock or just in a closet, twitching with election fatigue, the Democratic party has two candidates pretty close in delegate counts, and it looks like it will all come down to the votes of superdelegates, who are party muckety-mucks and have a full vote at the convention. Both the HRC and Obama camps are complaining about how this isn't fair, for varying reasons, and basically I think it's all stupid.

TANGENT ALERT*****TANGENT ALERT*****TANGENT ALERT

Look, here's my deal with the electoral college. In theory, I'm down with it. I'm okay with a representative democracy, that's fine, delegate it up. If I had my pick, I'd make it a national primary, over, done, no Iowa, no New Hampshire, no SuperTuesday, just everyone voting, minimal angst. However, in the current system, I really think we'd all benefit from switching to having the same system in both parties, by which I mean I think everyone should have primaries, NOT CAUCUSES (which are stupid), and the hell with superdelegates. The Democrats are supposed to be the party of the people, yet they integrate backroom smoke-and-mirroring into their candidate selection right out in the open! Reason I am totally making my own political party #98456265874658917659.

END TANGENT*****END TANGENT*****END TANGENT

In any case, I got to thinking about the genesis of the American electorate, and how the past three cycles have involved this kind of very close contest. It's been most notable in the Bush election cycles in 2000 and 2004, but has seeped into the primary process this year. I wonder if this closeness is an inevitable result of Constitutional structure or just a flukey coincidence. I think it's tough to say definitively.

Personally, I feel like it has a lot to do with the decline of voter turnout and the rise of "specialized" voting blocs, i.e. evangelicals turning out for Huckabee, anti-gay marriage blocs turning out for Bush. This might fall into that black hole of inevitability. The Constitution lead to the development of a capitalist society with a screening process for participation. Doesn't this make it seem like we were bound to wind up at this point? There's no national holiday for election day...people are reluctant to take the time off. Further, this means that the worse the economy gets, which most would agree is a good time for people to tune in and participate, the less likely people are to participate, because they can't afford the time off and corresponding hit in pay.

Though the above problems seem very modern, they're also a by-product of the society with which the Founders endowed us. When you read the Constitution and consider what has sprung forth from it, the document itself seems so...vague. It almost seems like that boss who gives you the employee handbook with a bunch of rules about what time to show up and how to avoid sexual harassment, then immediately starts saying things like "I want to make a rocket for lunar travel...and let's involved a kids' charity" before leaving the room and letting you figure out what the hell he's talking about and where you're going to get a rocket. It laid down fairly basic ground rules, but since then, we've developed a gigantic government and a sprawling legal system. The things that WERE specified formed a commercial republic, guaranteeing people would always be capitalistically driven and constantl held at an arm's length from actual political engagement.

With all that in mind, where are we now? Were we destined to wind up voting as blocs and electing Presidents by a hair's width? One of the great concerns of the Founders was the nefarious encroachment of factions...did they actually manage to develop a system that would eventually blur or erase the lines between factions?

I don't really have an answer for all this, I just think it's interesting to think about and couldn't raise it in class because it wasn't really germane. But it's interesting to think about how one document, written hundreds of years ago, could develop into the current society and government.