Today's thinking is going to be focused around the one thing in American politics that everyone loves to hate: The Electoral College. Well, at least most people love to hate it. I, on the other hand, happen to think it is a wonderful system that fits our nation as well in 2004 as did in 1804.
"But Carl," you liberals will say. "How can you defend this archaic system that flies in the face of true democracy? Especially when when the EuroElitists have condemned it?!?!"
First of all, I challenge the fact that this system is archaic. In fact, it may work better today than it ever has. One of the biggest reasons our fore fathers came up with this Electoral College was because they wanted to force candidates to drum up broad support across the whole nation in order to be elected President, and not just focus on one region or population center. At the time, there was very little communication between regions, and the fore fathers figured that people would just vote for who they knew. This would result in one candidate getting all the votes in the south, another in the north, and so on, and we really wouldn't have a national election, but many smaller, regional elections.
So today communication is moving at the speed of light, making our fore fathers reasoning, and their system, out of date, right? Wrong! In fact, today with our regional differences, we need more than ever for candidates to try and form a broad base of support across the entire nation, and not just focus on major population centers. In a direct election, you would see the candidates in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Miami, but never in Madison or Columbus or Concord.
So then what would happen to New Hampshire and Rhode Island in a direct election, you ask? Well, the candidates would only be stopping there if they had to make an emergency landing or something. That's another reason why the Electoral College was chosen. Our fore fathers were trying to sew together 13 very different colonies into one nation. The electoral college gives a voice to those smaller states that they wouldn't have in a direct election. Had our fore fathers not done it this way, those smaller states never would have signed on to the Constitution.
"But Carl," the liberals gasp. "Europe has spoken!! The UN has spoken!! Will you not listen?!?!?" Yes, I realize that a hobby in Europe is making fun of the Electoral College. You see, it makes them feel better about themselves if they pick on others. But, and this will be another shocker to all the liberals out there, I don't ask for the opinion of the French before I make decisions. Call me crazy, but that's just how I am. And think about it, do we really want a direct election if it is going to yield a leader like Jacques Chirac?? I know I don't.
In closing, I feel that the electoral college fits in nicely with our nation as a whole. But that's just my opinion. What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Man, That is a tough one. I guess I have always knee-jerk hated the electoral college system but one simple qwip made me see the wisdom in it 'True democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner'. But now we have a larger problem, didn't that just happen? Not with the presidential election, That was electoral college all the way, the continental west coast and the north east couldn't overcome the heart(less)land. No, 2 wolves - straight christian fundamentalists and 1 sheep - Gays and the liberal pinko commies who support them got together and decided that it was sheep for dinner tonight.
So you are right, in some respects, we are far too large a nation for one person one vote, ask france to imagine a single european leader being elected that way, I think they would learn an American phrase very quickly 'um.....'
One small problem with the electoral college system, take a look at the map, this worked for the 13 colonies, they were all small, including Virginia, where I am stuck right now. I grew up in Alaska, 1/5th the size of the rest of the country 3 electoral votes, but the real problem is that overall as we moved west, states got larger. Add that to the capitol being out here and living out west makes you feel like, well, you don't really count in American governance, you just pay for it.
No easy solution, one state one vote? same problem, the east still runs the country. The only thing I can think of is to add geographic area as a third factor in the number of votes you get, that way perhaps Alaska and New York would have about the same vote.
How about more candidates? Lots more, I want 20 non-partisan choices in a primary thats open to everyone, 2 months of campaining for the top 5 choices, then an election and like the original consitution, #1 in votes is in the big chair #2 is the VP, can you imagine how much more dignified this election would have been if Kerry was now the VP instead of Cheney? Hell better you that one, #2 is the Chief of Staff and #3 is the VP. Now there is some unification. Play nice boys, you are going to work together no matter what, because, we say so, thats right, we the people, your boss!
Just my 2 cents.
You know, I wouldn't mind going back to the old Electoral College. When it was first introduced, each Congressional District had one elector, and and then there were 2 given for the winner of the state. This was only used for a handful of elections, but if you look at those elections, you would have 3 or 4 people winning electoral votes instead of just the big two candidates.
That kind of touches on another point you made about having more candidates involved in the election. If we went back to the original Electoral College, you would get your wish of having more candidates on the ballot. While now a third party has about as much chance of winning a state as a Republican has of winning New York, under the old system it was a very real possibilty to have a third party run strongly in an area and pick up a few electoral votes. They were definitely a greater force in American politics than they are today, and I really feel that now people are ready for a viable third party.
As far as the "people + land = Electoral Votes" system, I don't know if I could get behind that. Then you would have 600,000 people in Alaska wielding far more political power than the 6 or 7 million in Illinois. Boy, and liberals think the system is screwy now....but wait....Alaska always votes Republican, whereas Illinois goes Democrat....hmmmmm....maybe that isn't such a bad idea....
Post a Comment