|
It’s not that Senator Dianne Feinstein’s new quest to abolish the Electoral College isn’t a noble one... if you believe that windmills are dragons. Throughout our nation’s history, proposals for constitutional amendments to slay the Electoral College have been as common as UFO sightings. Estimated numbers of attempts on the life of the Electoral College range between 700 and 1000. That’s 700 to 1000 losses... and 0 wins. Even the 49ers did better than that last year. But Senator Feinstein intends to tilt at the ancient and unconquered dragon once again.
2400 years ago, the Chinese general Sun Tzu wrote the first manual on strategy. "An army destined to defeat fights in the hope of winning but without any planning." Also, one must know when to fight and when not to fight; one should only offer battle when the potential gain clearly outweighs a prudent risk. Sun Tzu didn’t do dragons.
Abolishing the Electoral College is somewhat of a progressive issue in that it is based on the principle of "one person, one vote." However, more than anything it is a "large states vs. small states" issue, and that is why it is a perennial loser. The reality is that there are many more Idahos and Nebraskas than there are Californias and New Yorks, and since a small state has as many votes in the US Senate as a large state, any proposal to do away with the Electoral College cannot hope to win the required two-thirds majority. It is destined to defeat. Even worse, the issue pits progressive states large and small against each other, weakening progressive solidarity. If you fight someone tooth-and-nail on one issue, it’s hard to muster any more than lukewarm support on another issue on which you agree.
Political capital is like ammunition: use too much of it up in an unwise action, and you have to wait to be resupplied. Meanwhile, your forces may be in disarray and vulnerable to a counterstrike. Abolishing the Electoral College isn’t the only constitutional amendment that’s being bandied about this year. There’s also talk of an amendment to ban gay marriage.
Blocking a proposed constitutional amendment is easier than getting one ratified. You only need the opposition of one-third of either the US Senate or House, or one-fourth of the state legislatures, and the amendment fails. However, gay marriage is a visceral issue that has more enemies than allies. The proposed ban should be considered a very real threat to the civil rights of a minority.
So a strategic question needs to be answered in the coming weeks: should progressives gear up to fight for a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College, or gear up to fight against a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage? Progressives should not only consider which battle is more likely to be won, but which battle is more worth fighting because its outcome touches people’s lives more directly.
I’m not crazy about the Electoral College, but I can live with it because it doesn’t live in my bedroom. What’s in your bedroom?
|
