"It is time we start preparing ourselves for the onslaught of anti-Constitutional propaganda."
I got this request from a certain someone. He told me it is "one of the most controversial topics out there." I don't see what's so controversial about. I like the electoral college. It wasn't the electoral college's fault Bush was elected, it was our own. I still would've liked to have seen Gore in office as opposed to Bush. Ugh.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
This is kind of disappointing, Joe. This is one of my favorite constitutional topics just because its depth is so unique in that both the Legislative and Executive branches are key to why the Electoral College exists. But oh well, thanks for agreeing. Gives me hope, but you have never let me down.
What's your favorite newspapers and/or other news sources not on Television? Just to change the topic here.
I think that in political theory it has much depth, but it does not seem to be an issue on the hearts and minds of the American people. You do not hear people talk about it until their candidate did not win. I think that the people's voices are heard through the electoral college for the most part. If we dismantled the electoral college then we would be dismantling our representative government. Our country was not founded on anarchy:)
As for my favorite media sources other than TV. To be honest, I don't watch TV for news. I find it sensational and not always accurate. I primarily listen to podcasts from NPR, BBC, PBS. I have Meet the Press from NBC in my mix but that's it. As for newspapers I love the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and unfortunately I do read the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel occasionally. As for magazines I like the Economist, Smart Money, and Consumer Reports. That's all. That's all.
1, WSJ; 2, NYT; 3, only for Packers/Badgers/Brewers Milwaukee JS; and over here I enjoy reading the Suddeutsche Zeitung out of Munich.
For radio I go to SudWestRundfunk based in Baden-Württemberg, and its station SWR con-tra. TV news is bogus, especially now that Tom Brokaw isn't around to be laughed at for his mannerisms and glottals.
I wouldn't say that a popular vote would lead to anarchy... but definitely would further give the President more power than it (deserves...) is allotted in the Constitution.
Although I would say, people's voices are not heard through electoral college, which is the point: the state's voice as a whole is heard. The people's voices are heard in the House of Representatives.
I believe the electoral college should be abolished. The ec is not a check on anarchy but rather it is an obstacle for true democracy. What is so scary about making people's votes actually count? The principle of one person - one vote seems pretty solid to me.
The ec is a major reason for low voter turnout. People in non-swing states (about half of the country) have almost no incentive to vote. If you are a democrat in Texas or a Republican in a perenial democratic state what incentive do you have to vote? None, because your vote honestly doesn't matter.
And the issue about giving equal attention to the states doesn't matter. No politician would bother spending time and money in North Dakota but nobody spends time there even with the ec.
This is all besides the instances where the ec thwarts the will of the country. And that absolutlely should not happen.
I think people misconstrued my smiley face. I was sayin "Our country was not founded on anarchy" facetiously. I think the electoral college is representative of our, not to sound repetitive, representative way of government. If we are represented by our leaders in other aspects, why not our choice for President? I think Dan brought up some interesting points. I can't believe that people are anti-voting solely on the electoral college. At best it is one factor. I think the lack of deliberation and economic comfort could be stronger ones. I could be wrong though. I guess at the end of the day I still stand behind the electoral college as a a good representative for our interest for President. If the system continued on a train of abuses after Gore v. Bush perhaps I would change my mind.
I like Joe's perspective that the electoral college is a form of representative government. However, it is troubling to know that you can get the most votes and not win the election, and even more troubling to think that the House could be forced to decide an election if a 3rd party or Independent candidate ever steals away enough votes.
However, I still support the system, mainly because of the more equal representation that it gives the states during campaigning. Sure, nobody really cares about North Dakota, because nobody lives there. But if they ever decided to let cattle vote, maybe that would change. But seriously, if there wasn't an electoral college, the candidates' strategies would probably change to where they would 1. campaign mostly in large population areas, especially big cities, and 2. potentially ignore the 50/50 split "swing states" and instead try to mobilize their base of core supporters. Also, popular vote isn't any fun since 75% of elections would be decided weeks in advance if the popular vote deviates by more than 5% or so. This would discourage people from voting further.
Plus, the electoral college just makes things more exciting than the boring popular vote.
So, a number of things:
1. I understand that we have a representative democracy for our government. I believe however that it should be representative only when neccessary and should be democratic when at all possible. In one of your new posts you mentioned that you would like to move power away from authoritianism. It's the same issue. Power to the people. If people are already at the voting booth you might as well make their vote count properly.
2.I think that the ec is a bigger reason for people not voting than you realize. If you are a Republican in say, Delaware, your vote will NEVER count. So why vote? At best your vote is a symbolic statement.
3.The ec doesn't equal out campaigning among the states. Canidates spend all there time in big swing states and nowhere else. If the ec where abolished campaigning would actually be MORE EQUAL. You might actually see Democrats visiting Texas and Republicans visiting New York. Canidates would be able to access minorities constiuencies that were previously unavialble to them and they would have an incentive to actually do some campaigning in their base states to get out the vote.
4.Even if I am completely wrong about everything in point 3 there is a greater reason why equal campaigning is an insufficent reason to oppose abolishing the ec. The reason is that you are an American over and above your state citizenship. Choosing what is right for the nation should supersede state's interests.
5.Joe Z, I know you love sports that have a lot of statisics but the health of the nation is many times more important than having a "fun" election contest.
Dan does make some good points and it's difficult to argue with him. Perhaps we should split up some of the larger states into smaller regions, so no area has more than about 15 electoral votes. That way, regions would be better represented. Also, just as your state elects representatives to the house, voting in the presidential election is voting for a representative who will cast a vote for your state. Does a democratic voter living in Waukesha county really have a say in any sort of political decisions at all--not really, since Republicans will always be elected. Politicians should make decisions based on what their district wants them to do. If the majority of California wants a democrat, then the democrat should win the votes there.
1. Splitting states into districts is POTENTIALLY better but still not very good and has its own problems. Carving up states into districts would be a process that is very vulnerable to gerrymandering. By creative carving I bet I could split states into districts that would be more mis-representative to the popular vote than even the current winner-take-all system. Picking our representative system to model is a bad idea. Just look at Texas and Tom Delay!
2. I agree with you Joe that politicians should be representative of the wishes of their district. In this case the district in question is the whole United States. It is a national election. We don't split the vote by counties when we elect our senators. No, the popular vote of the whole district in question (the state) determines the winner. The same principle applies to the presidential election. What state you are from should be meaningless.
The popular vote is still the only way to go. You guys really need to check out the popular vote campaign. It is a state by state campaign to change the system so we award the state's electoral votes to the popular vote winner. It would only take effect once the enough states that have passed to bill produce a majority of delegates. http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/
70% of the public supports the popular vote. The popular vote campaign already has 27 electoral votes. Hawaii and Illinois just need their bills to be signed by their governors. That would give us 51 electoral votes which is about 1/5 of the way to winning the campaign. Illinois is really pissed off about this. They have 21 electoral votes and neither candidate bothered to visit them in 2004.
Post a Comment