9
MARCH 2020 FORBES ASIA
Introducing
What’s Ahead,
the new podcast hosted
by Steve Forbes.
Subscribe now on iTunes
or GooglePlay Store.Unlike the two-party system the Electoral Col-
lege fosters today, there would be numerous candi-
dates competing in a national election. More basic
and ominous is that in contrast to the moderating
bias of the Electoral College, a direct popular-vote
system would put a premium on inflaming passions
to gin up support for candidates in a crowded field.
Of course, if no aspirant reached a certain
threshold—and what level should that be: 40%?
50%?—there would have to be a runoff. Since there
would be so many candidates vying to occupy 1600
Pennsylvania Avenue, one could easily envision
elections in which the runoff would be between two
extremist candidates who each received, say, 10% of
the vote in the first round. To win a runoff, contend-
ers would have to bargain with the field’s losers for
support in the final round. The horse-trading and
outright payoffs this new system would encourage
would make today’s political bargaining look tame
in comparison.
Then, of course, you would have crucial, nitty-grit-
ty details to resolve. Who would police the 175,
voting districts to avoid chicanery? Who would en-
sure that absentee ballots were not tampered with?
All of this could involve a major expansion in the cen-
tral government’s power. Each state today has its own
rules for voting. Some states, for example, encourage
early voting; others do not. Under a direct-voting
system, these rules would have to be uniform—again,
another extension of Washington’s power.
Democrats hate the Electoral College because
in both the 2000 and 2016 elections they lost the
White House even though their candidates received
more popular votes than their GOP opponents. This
ignores the fact that if the College hadn’t existed
during those contests, the candidates would have
waged entirely different kinds of campaigns. Donald
Trump, for instance, would not have taken precious
time near the end of the campaign to visit Maine in
the hope of garnering an electoral vote in a congres-
sional district (which he did).
Our Founders knew exactly what they were doing
when they created the Electoral College. We ignore
their wisdom at our peril.
Don’t Ground
These SneakersBloomberg
Blows ItNike has produced a sneaker called the Vaporfly
that is roiling the sports world. Its technology, ac-
cording to critics and competitors, gives users an
“unfair” advantage in elite running races, thereby
threatening the integrity of the sport. It appears
the shoes won’t be banned in this summer’s Tokyo
Olympics; however, the world governing body for
track and field is trying to curb further improve-
ments in this technology.
Huh? What’s the big deal here? We’re not talking
about drugs. Isn’t sports equipment supposed to get
better? The way Vaporflys are constructed reduces
a runner’s “energy cost.” Runners love them. Win-
ners of recent marathons, at which records were set,
wore versions of the sneaker. Naturally, Nike’s com-
petitors are unhappy that prestige (and amateur)
athletes are flocking to Vaporflys. They would be
delighted to see Vaporflys banned in competitions—
for now. They’re scrambling to create their own ver-
sions—free-market competition works!
Over the years sneakers have made quantum
leaps in comfort, style and durability. So have sports
fabrics and other kinds of equipment. Isn’t this what
progress is supposed to be all about?Mike Bloomberg proclaims he
can best beat Donald Trump. But
he made a blunder that will hurt
him badly if he is the Democrats’ nominee this No-
vember: He came out for raising economic-growth-
killing taxes on a scale that would ostensibly raise
almost 50% more revenue than Joe Biden’s sup-
posedly more moderate schemes. Bloomberg’s nos-
trums would crush capital creation and business
investment and tank the stock market. Economic
growth would stagnate, and wage growth would
wither, if not decline.
By contrast, the president will be unveiling an-
other round of tax cuts to be enacted if he’s reelected.
Bloomberg and the rest of the Democratic field
have forgotten what happened the last time their
party standard-bearer so loudly trumpeted raising
taxes: In 1984, pro-tax Walter Mondale carried only
one state and the District of Columbia against the
tax-cutting incumbent, Ronald Reagan. FFACT & COMMENT