The problem I always face when debating on discussions like this one is that I oft assume a position without providing the perspective from which I am arguing. Now that I have provided that perspective I feel better equipped to present my arguments.
First, and I think this is very important to this debate, it should be pointed out that most, if not all, of the arguments concerning the appropriate representation of D.C. and the usefulness of the Electoral College (E.C.) are not new to the debate but have been made since before the ratification of the Constitution (over 200 years now and we are still having the same debate).
Let me first address the status of D.C. I believe that Madison makes a very clear argument for why D.C. should not be part of a state (see last half of Fed. 43). Even today I think this argument holds true. However, Moskie (and others) make a very good argument that there are many people living in D.C. who do not work for the Federal Government (or in any support function thereof) who feel disenfranchised because they do not have Federal representation.
What answer would I purpose, then, that solve this problem? Well I would have to ask myself what common sense would tell us to do, and upon reflection I believe the answer is a simple one in which most parties could agree. Keep D.C. an independent entity (a city-state if you will) that would not fall under the jurisdiction of any one state (including a true state of its own) but devise a method for including the D.C. population in the census population for Maryland (with a possible split with Virginia) for the purpose of Congressional distribution of representatives, including D.C. as a congressional district of that state(s), thus giving D.C. residents congressional representation. Note: I am well aware that this would only give D.C. representation in the House and not the Senate, but as D.C. is not and should not be counted as a state, I believe this answer to be the best compromise between the two sides of the debate.
Now on to the question of the E.C. Here I think it should first be pointed out that no where in either the constitution or in the Federalist Papers does it ever mention that the citizenry should have the right to vote for Presidential representation. Let me again point you to Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, ... Now while tradition has provided that we the people “vote for the president”, we are actually voting for electors who in turn are charged with voting for the candidate they best see fit to fulfill the role of president (In fact each state is allowed to decide how it’s presidential electors are selected meaning they could, if they so desired, chose to have the state legislature pick the electors and skip the whole mess of a popular state vote).
Instead of arguing that the E.C. is an outdated mechanism that should be discarded I would argue that, if used as it was originally intended, the E.C. would provide the very results what many here so desire. Do reach those result, however, the E.C. and our current political system in most states needs to be overhauled to strengthen not weaken the E.C. One of the best options, in my opinion, is for all the (48) states to follow the lead of Maine and Nebraska allowing for split E.C. representation instead of the winner-take-all approach they now have. Firstly, this would force presidential candidates to spend more time campaigning in larger areas of the country instead of focusing solely on only key swing states. Secondly, this would also open the door for 3rd party candidates because they could now conceivably win E.C. districts whereas they could not carry a entire state.
Now for the more controversial part of my argument concerning the E.C. Let me first point you back to Hamilton’s argument in Fed. # 68: “It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations ... The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes.”
What Hamilton is arguing here is basically that the mass population is too easily swayed by transcendental political rhetoric and a president should be insulated from these mere whims of the masses. A president should not take action based upon what is popular at that particular juncture in time, but should always take action for the best interest of the country. The E.C. was devised as a mechanism by which to provide the president with that insolation. To a large extent it has worked. Strengthening the E.C. would provide better insolation for the president and, I believe, also weaken our present 2-party system (although it may take some time).
As for attempting to reach an equal apportionment of electorates so that everyone’s vote counted the same, I would just like to point out that “states are people too”, at least in the legal sense, and the present apportionment insures that each “state” has an equal say in who is President. (Each state has two votes, better known as Senators). Remember, the House is the body of the People, the Senate is the body of the States (Of course this is not entirely true any more because of the 17th amendment, but the justification of which is a topic of debate for a different post).
