Monday, 23 November 2020
Many people think the Electoral College should be eliminated. I agree with them (probably not for the same reason), but they may not have thought this proposition through.
Wouldn’t elimination of the Electoral College mean MOAR “democracy” because Presidents would be elected directly by popular vote, rather than indirectly? Perhaps, but why not eliminate the President and the national government entirely, if MOAR “democracy” is the goal?
An article on Mises brought this thought to mind. Here is Rosanna
“What does self-government, which democracy relies on so heavily, mean for the individual? All power lies with the masses, ergo the masses are sovereign according to democratic principle. But the mere act of electing politicians-our representatives-is a contradiction to sovereignty itself. It is virtually impossible to represent the sovereign, because being “sovereign” means to make one’s own decisions. They cannot be made by someone else, otherwise sovereignty will have shifted hands. At best, the sovereign can employ someone to fulfill his demands, but it won’t come as a surprise that this is rarely what politicians do. Politicians rarely regard themselves simply as delegates or agents of a group of voters. And even if they did, it would be impossible to represent all of the voters, and various minority groups would be left unrepresented.”
Many states today have rules/laws that state the Electors chosen by popular vote (the winner of the popular vote in a state takes all the electors) are bound to vote in accord with that popular vote. This leaves them without any discretion or will of their own with respect to the task of voting for President. They are reduced to puppets.
I would like to apply this principle to every other level of our “representative” government, or just eliminate the Electoral College along with all the other “representatives”.
If that is done, something will have to fill the vacuum. Why not private enterprise? For example, a neighborhood wants security – it can hire a private security firm. The same neighborhood wants fire protection, it can hire a fire protection firm. If those firms provide poor service, the neighborhood might fire them or cut their pay. There would be no voting involved, except by the payment of money. I know this might require
neighbors to get to know each other (how could I suggest that?), so they could work together securing these services and then administering those services.
I think we can choose between delegating and getting involved and getting our hands dirty. The MOAR involved you are and thus the dirtier your hands, the MOAR “democracy” you have and the less official government.
Freedom and responsibility are just the two sides of the same coin.