Kant, Mill and the Electoral College

I had a fear preceding the election that neither candidate would win both the popular and electoral vote. I have always had mixed feelings about the electoral college and can never decide whether distributing the power to protect factions is worth devaluing individual votes.

I would argue that the electoral college has effected many elections negatively, mostly by confining campaigning to fewer states and leaving the rest of the population untargeted and unmotivated. People in a strongly democratic state such as California shouldn't matter less than people in swing states like Ohio.

Thinking about the value of votes got me thinking about the value of opinions. Having just read Kant and Mill, I began to think of the popular vote and electoral college like a political theorist might.

I think Kant would have probably liked the idea of the electoral college. His focus on the immaturity of mankind made me think that he would have appreciated a buffer method to prevent the masses from getting too carried away. Kant would have argued that people often have trouble thinking for themselves and that the electoral college makes it harder for a candidate to win, meaning that they have to win by higher margins and appeal to multiple types of people. Kant wirtes in What is Enlightenment? "a great deal is still lacking in order for men as a whole to be, or even to put themselves into a position to be able without external guidance to apply understanding confidently ". Kant's rants on immaturity  indicate that he barely trusts mankind to make decisions for themselves, nevermind others. He might argue that the popular vote should be employed after the enlightenment of men, but how one could judge this occurence is questionable. Therefore he might have taken comfort in the electoral system which makes it more difficult for factions defined by state borders to overpower one another.

Mill on the other hand, would have rejected favoring opinions based on where they came from because he disscusses how it is impossible to discern the validity of an opinion. He writes in Of Liberty and Thought of Discussion "They have no authority to decide the question for all mankind, and exclude every other person from the means of judging." The electoral college does just this. Voters in swing states have a more valuable vote than in other places and exercise more control in elections. Opinions should encourage experiments in living which the masses must direct in order to see which policies- or in this case which candidates/parties - work. Especially considering that the presidential term lasts only four years, I think Mill would have treated all opinions equally because he does not mention immaturity like Kant and would beleive that even if America elected the wrong president, this period would last only four to eight years and the that country would remain protected from tyranny and inequailty by the constituition and other checks and balances.  

I think Mill's opinions on opinions are closer to mine and that he would value the popular vote in favor of the electoral college. The very foundation of Kant's arguments, that some men are too immature to have valuable opinions, seems threatening and potentially very dangerous to me. There is no way to know whether all opinions are equal, and people might attack one another's character, education, and background to discount their opinions as the nobility did and does to unfairly treated masses. As a "Millist" however, I should acknowledge how possible it is that I am wrong, and that I may need to observe a couple more elections to cast my vote on this one.