Abolish the Electoral College…and the popular vote?

I came across the following Reason article the other day, which suggests that, instead of abolishing the popular vote, random people should be selected from the voter rolls and be appointed as the electors. The article also discusses a proposition made by Jason Brennan of Georgetown University:

Voters are irrational, ignorant, and incompetent, he argues, and placing limits on democracy makes just as much sense as letting attorneys sort through a pool of jurors to dismiss those who are disqualified. Brennan envisions a system where only coolly rational and educated individuals, those least likely to be affected by the emotional and partisan elements of politics, vote — though he’s not clear on whether others would be excluded or whether he wishes they would just stay home.

This, for reasons that are probably obvious, is impractical (and some conspiracy theorists would argue is already in effect). However, what if you combined the two ideas? In particular, what if we just let the House of Representatives elect the president?

I agree, to some degree, with Brennan’s assessment of the general population of voters:

1. People, in general, are incredibly irrational and heavily driven by emotion (this is not meant to be an insult to people, it’s just the way we’re wired).
2. They are incredibly ill-informed. Again, this is not meant to be an insult. It merely follows from the fact that most of us have very little interest in understanding the complexities of the presidency, and that’s okay. There are vast numbers of people who dedicate their lives to the complexities of trade, foreign relations, the military, etc. It is impossible to expect one person, much less the entire voting populace to understand these incredibly complex issues.
3. Most of our information comes from the media, which, by definition, screens the information we receive. Even if we assume the media isn’t biased and that “journalists”, on average, have an intellect greater than that of a typical Tumblr blogger, they still can’t provide us with all the information we need to make good decisions.

The members of the House of Representatives, however, are exposed to much more of the information that is relevant, and spend a lot more time understanding the complexities involved in running the country. They are, at the very least, much more informed than the average voter. Further, they represent the voters of each state, so serve as a decent proxy for the voting populace.

Further, this would permit stronger interaction with the individual candidates. For example, the candidates would have the opportunity to sit down and have in-depth discussions with the members of the House, instead of merely trying to appeal to the general population through questionable debates and soundbites. Debates could be held by the House, which would permit questions more relevant to the actual job than those that would appeal to a mass audience.

Because Congress would have such a great role in electing the president, this could also engender greater cooperation between Congress and the President. For example, if two-thirds of Congress (see below) is responsible for electing the president, they’re more likely to select someone that they feel like they can cooperate with.

We could, to some degree, force bipartisanship by requiring at least a two-thirds vote. Although there is always the possibility that one party basically runs the table on the other parties, but this seems unlikely (I haven’t looked at the historical counts, so I might be wrong). Given the “gridlock” in Congress, another clear concern is trying to devise a mechanism by which the House is forced to select a single candidate within a reasonable amount of time. On its face, however, this does not appear to be an unsolvable, or even challenging problem.

One cynical, foreseeable argument against this idea is that the people we elect, on average, seem to be similarly irrational and arguably incompetent as well. However, we’re not trying to come up with an optimal solution (which only exists in theory), but merely one that is better than what we do now. As far as managing the affairs of the government, they are, without a doubt, much more informed than the average voter, which satisfies the “better than what we have” criteria.

The specific mechanism by which candidates are selected for consideration could vary. It could be similar to how it is now. Or we could consider other possibilities; maybe each state nominates a single person and we devise a mechanism for whittling down the pool from there. For example, after a state nominates a candidate, the members of the Senate might be required to select five of the candidates to send to the House for consideration. I came up with these ideas after a few minutes of considering the problem, so I have no doubt that, collectively, we could brainstorm a large number of mechanisms.

While there are likely downsides, I’m less concerned with those than I am that it meets the criteria of being democratic and providing better results than what we have now. And I believe it does both, and very clearly.