There's an awful lot of talk about popular vote again. I wonder if people realize the numbers would be awfully different if they picked presidents off popular vote and the college system was removed. A conservative in California might actually bother to vote because their vote would matter now for example.
Which is one more reason the electoral college system coupled with the majoritarian electoral system most States use to determine their voters doesn't work - it reduces electoral turnout significantly.
Of course, abandoning the electoral college, "winner takes it all" system would turn the current situation which sees an advantage of rural areas over cities turned on its head. And I believe the current problem with American politics can't be solved unless the US abandon presidentialism in favor of directorialism (which is arguably the best form of republican government for culturally and economically diverse federations). But you won't, because of two reasons:
- a strong belief that the Constitution (and not its spirit) is sacred and the Founding Fathers were always right, nevermind the fact that their United States were a rural country of 13 states and 3 million inhabitants, and for them the telegraph would be a wonderous technology;
- the role of the President as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, and therefore of the strategic nuclear arsenal. Under a directorial system, each and every military intervention of the US would require months of discussion in Congress, and the current nuclear doctrine of the US would be severely undermined by the lack of a single individual responsible for the deployment of the nuclear arsenal.
A more conventional parliamentary system with a proportional electoral system would likely prove less problematic; however, even with the blandest form of premiership possible (that of a PM which is a primus inter pares) said system would soon devolve in a pseudo-presidential system unless the US party system and political culture quickly changed and became more fragmented and polarized (something I don't see happening very easily). And its implementation would be as difficult to stomach for the Constitution-adoring crowd, if not actually worse (
"if the Founding Fathers wanted a parliamentary sytem they would've stuck with the Crown!").
All of this means that you are essentially stuck with a political system which will always make half of the population feel unrepresented because of the reverence by which you treat people who died some two centuries ago, and because you're stuck with a doomsday-in-a-bottle you don't even need.
Sounding more rational equals lying now?
Using a bit of
realpolitik and telling a couple of white lies to gain more votes and win an election is an acceptable tactic, although surely not a morally endorsable one. But basing your entire campaign on promises which you are reneging on
not a week after you've won the elections, and when you are not even the President yet? Less so.
Of course, Trump being a bit more rational than he was during his campaign is something we should all be glad of. However, something tells me that a part of his electorate - one famous for owning plenty of firearms and believing they can win a fight against the US Gov't - may not be as happy as we are now. I'll let you infer what the possible consequences of their dissatisfaction with Trump's presidency may be.
The Donald played a dangerous gambit, making promises he can't keep to people who don't like being lied too. And as the legend of Faust teaches us, making deals with the devil is usually
not the brightest idea that can cross one's mind.
