As a proud Nebraskan, I am deeply concerned about the proposed changes to our state's unique Electoral College Vote (ECV) system. While I respect Governor Jim Pillen's commitment to lowering property taxes, I must express my concern about ending Nebraska's approach of splitting ECVs.
Our current system, shared only with Maine, gives Nebraska a
louder voice on the national stage. It draws attention from presidential
campaigns, media outlets, and brings presidential campaigns to our doorstep.
This spotlight on Nebraska isn't just about political clout; it's about
ensuring our values and concerns are heard at the highest levels of government.
The wisdom of our Founding Fathers echoes through this
debate. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, architects of our nation's
foundation, warned against the dangers of concentrated power. They envisioned a
system where power checks power, fostering moderation and compromise. Our split
ECV system embodies this vision, encouraging candidates to engage with
Nebraskans, and sets a stage to encourage younger Nebraskans to stay here after
graduation. An imbalanced, one party system stifles debate, encourages the
brain drain, leads to extremism, and removes Madison’s intent that incumbents
act with moderation and caution.
Madison's words in Federalist Papers #47 and #51 remind us
that diffusing power protects against tyranny and corruption. By pitting power
against power and subjecting government actions to a system of checks and
balances, Americans created a form of government that today is the model for
much of the world. By maintaining our
current ECV system, we honor this principle, ensuring that the diverse voices are
represented in presidential elections.
The "blue dot" in Nebraska isn't a flaw; it's a
feature that keeps our state politically dynamic and relevant. It forces
candidates to consider the nuances of our electorate, promoting a healthier
democracy where ideas compete and compromise flourishes. Eliminating this
system would remove the fear of being punished in the next election cycle; a
crucial incentive for elected officials to moderate their positions and respect
the views of all voters.
In these times of political polarization, Nebraska has an
opportunity to lead by example. By preserving our split ECV system, we can show
the nation that it's possible to elevate the competition of ideas while
ensuring the sanctity of our democratic process. Yes, some have and will abuse
this intent but by leading with better ideas, rather than flexing political
muscle, Nebraska can demonstrate to the
rest of the nation what’s been lost in these tumultuous times and help forge a
path back to a healthy two party system.
As we look to the future, let's choose the path that honors
our state's unique role in national politics, upholds the principles of our
Founding Fathers, and strengthens the fabric of our democracy. Nebraska's split
ECV system isn't just about electoral strategy; it's about preserving the very
essence of American democracy that our forefathers envisioned.
By the logic of your argument, with which I agree BTW, our national electoral college system is deeply anti-democratic as winner take all favors state power over national will. In contrast, the senatorial system is starkly minoritarian in that smaller, mostly rural states effectively control the upper house majority. To realize a more representative government, we should abandon the former in favor of the Maine and Blue Dot models.
ReplyDeleteI don't know that I would use the phrase "deeply anti-Democratic." The entire premise of the American model of self-governance is to thwart direct democracy (or mob rule). There are two academic books I've read on voting behavior and models. That's not to say they are "the best," since I am not a scholar on voting models, however, William Riker's Liberalism against Populism, and Anthony Downs, An Economic Theory of Democracy are pretty good sources for a mathematical examination of voting. Ultimately, their argument, which I find compelling, does not encourage direct democracy. However, there are better albeit more complex models. I imagine our "Burger King" politics (have it your way) has given voters the false impression that they are a powerful sovereign - which was never the intent. This attitude, as expressed best by George Harrison, "I, Me, Mine" is unhealthy and, in my estimation, causing conflict as both major parties vie for wins through partisan muscle at the ballot box. Our system demands friction, balanced power, and healthy compromise.
Delete