8
FORBES ASIA MARCH 2020FACT & COMMENT
By Steve Forbes, Editor-in-Chief“With all thy getting, get understanding”How to Save U.S. Politics
Critics of the much-maligned Electoral
College overlook one of its fundamental
virtues: tamping down dangerously divi-
sive politics. Advocates of replacing this
“18th-century anachronism” with a straight
popular vote implicitly assume the current
two-party system would remain intact and
that the candidate with the most individual
votes—instead of electoral votes—would
win the White House. That’s the way things
work for every other elected office in the
U.S.; why wouldn’t it be so for the most im-
portant one of all?
But the basic two-party arrangement we take for grant-
ed exists only because of the Electoral College. To win the
presidency, a candidate has to appeal to people across the
country. A nationwide coalition is essential to gaining a
majority in the Electoral College. A narrow sectional or
special-interest base simply won’t cut it. That’s why our
parties are collections of many diverse interests and back-
grounds, reflecting the character of this continental na-
tion whose citizens, or forebears, have come from all cor-
ners of the world and reflect a wide array of cultures and
beliefs. It’s why supporters of the Democratic and Repub-
lican parties are so often uneasy with one another. GOP
voters in the Northeast, for instance, who tend to empha-
size economic issues such as low taxes, are put off by social
conservatives.
The system puts a premium on moderation. Yes, can-
didates can advocate bold programs, but they have to do
so in ways that don’t alienate more tepid members of their
party, not to mention independent voters. A radical idea
usually goes through what might be called a marinating
process, during which time people become accustomed to
the notion, and even then it has often become a watered-
down version of the original.
The Electoral College’s systemic bias for softening the
rough, potentially dangerous edges of national politics has
enabled us for over two centuries to debate and resolve
even bitterly contentious issues without tearing apart the
country and leaving wounds that can fester for genera-
tions. The exception, of course, was the issue of slavery.
Otherwise, the tendency to move toward moderation and
inclusion has held.Look at the Democrats. The party has
indeed lunged to the left, but behold what’s
happened to its presidential wannabes who
most faithfully parroted the extreme views of
far-left activists on such matters as rigid anti-
individual identity politics or an immediate
government takeover of health care: They’ve
floundered or have tried to soften the sharp-
ness of their views. Elizabeth Warren’s once
expanding bubble deflated once she had to
explain how she was going to pay for all the
“free stuff ” she was promising. Party mem-
bers were also put off by her harsh negativity.
If one of the parties does veer far from the existing cen-
ter, it will suffer a shattering defeat, as the Democrats did in
1972 when they nominated a far-left candidate who ended
up carrying only one state and the District of Columbia.
Along the same lines, because candidates have to wage
nationwide campaigns to win, the Electoral College forc-
es these contenders to become familiar with local and re-
gional issues they might otherwise overlook, most particu-
larly in battleground states. The current arrangement does
more to give a voice to minorities, people whose support
could be crucial in key states.
Today’s parties are state and local organizations. Each runs
its own show its own way. Sure, there are national committees,
but they are essentially fundraising entities for congressional
and gubernatorial candidates—and their party’s presidential
candidate. Every four years local parties come together to for-
mally nominate a presidential candidate, who then is auto-
matically put on the ballot in every state in the union (and the
District of Columbia). In contrast, independent candidates for
our ultimate office have to go through an expensive, laborious
process to get on all the ballots. Few manage to do so. Each
state has its own rules—some easy, others extremely difficult.
A direct popular vote for president would shatter this
political ecosystem that’s uniquely suited to America.
Individuals and special-interest organizations would
continuously create their own parties. For example, would
Mike Bloomberg—who at various times during his political
career has been a Democrat, a Republican and an indepen-
dent—even bother to try to fetch the Democratic nomina-
tion for president? Of course not. With his resources, he
would do it on his own.