|
MESSAGE BOARD Is it time to get rid of the Electoral College?
In "Peculiar institution," Alexander Keyssar describes the nearly successful effort to get rid of the Electoral College in 1969-70 and suggests that its survival may owe more to the legacy of slavery, and the political power of the South, than to efforts by small states to preserve any mathematical advantage. After the experience of the 2000 election, and the prospect of a repeat this November, has the time finally come to abolish the Electoral College? Who stands to gain? Who to lose?
Page 12 By eliminating the EC, the media will weild even more power in influencing elections (re: forged military docs) by "reporting" what they want the public to believe and therefore manipulating people who just want the news reported to them . Mary Mapes is an outspoken Liberal (her own words) who produces 60 Minutes and led the charge with a forged document in hand. I know you're all saying right now, "Yah, but what about FOX." Well, they REPORT the news and the public decides what to do with what they've heard. Another key factor in keeping the EC, I don't want all these LIBERALS in NYC deciding which person should lead this great Country! That goes for LA, Chicago and all the metro areas of this land. They all say the EC isn't fair, but giving millions of people who are use to Federally funded programs in metropolitan areas power over rural Americans is? Please! I say you're all still whinning over the fact you lost in 2000, you can't get over it and you're a bunch of sore losers. "If you can win, change the rules" -- that's your thinking and it's a shame. Jay, NYC 2 thoughts: 1) Many have mentioned the Colorado Ballot Question to dole out their Electoral College Votes in proportion to the amount of votes each candidate gets. This is a silly idea. If Colorado is currently 60% Bush and 40% Kerry, and in future elections the state is similarly divided and the initiative passes. Why would any politician give any attention to Colorado and its issues? Spend 2 weeks campaigning there and millions of dollars to move maybe 10% of the people and get 1 more Electoral Vote? Or would you take that time and money and spend it in a close state where you can take all the Electoral Votes? 2) Its amazing to see the disdain for "battleground" states as deciding the election. Those regions are just as much of the US as is Massachusetts. I may not agree with the red "fly-over" states, but they deserve their representation and voice in the process. Take away the electoral college and candidates would pander to the needs of the big cities only... promise the cities everything and squeeze the farmers and rural areas with taxes to pay for it. Who needs to help farmers anymore? There aren't enough to matter! Sounds like a recipe for a 2nd civil war. Phil, Waltham, MA Keep the EC, but change to a system similar to Maine's. In MA, my vote doesn't count in Presidential elections (Democrat will generally win), so I can vote for a 3rd party candidate and hope to increase their political clout. I'd rather vote against a candidate usually, so this allows me to vote, without having the sick feeling that I supported one the heavily flawed major party candidates. Scot, Methuen, MA It seems the same arguments could be used by both opponents and proponents of eliminating the Electoral College. I myself find some reasons to keep the current system as I look at the anecdotal evidence around me as to why certain people vote for a candidate. "I like his smile", "I like his wife better", "I can relate better to him". Over 200 years and the American populace still aren’t knowledgeable enough to make an informed decision; why else would attack ads work so well. We are so content to have someone else tell us why to vote for a candidate than bother to find out for ourselves (voting records and the content of what was voted on are available). Political activist have to throw reason and knowledge out the window and work on smear tactics and raw emotion like fear and anger to mobilize a voting population because the first two reasons bore (read confuse) the average person. But that is exactly the reason why the popular vote needs to be instituted, until the responsibility can be solely placed on the individual, there is not enough motivation to learn who or what you are voting for in the election. Then again I'd simply be happy with 60% turnout, uninformed individuals need not apply. David, Malden Yes! If we are founded on the prinicple that all men are created equal, then each of our votes should be counted as equal. Just because the majority of a population may vote one way, it should not over ride the opinion of each individual! LIZ, DRACUT I've been reading all these posts, and there are way too many people who think... a lot of things. Apparently "liberals" are by definition the ones against the electoral college. I'm pretty liberal, and I still happen to believe in the importance of apportioning the electoral power between the people and the states as the current method can do. And apparently far too many people think that the electoral college is the reason why "too much power is in the hands of a few small states" during the election--it's only that way because of the vast majority of states using the winner-take-all method of assigning electoral votes, not the existence of the electoral college, that makes specific, small targeted states so important, and only because the candidates are so close in the polls. Trust me, if California were remotely close in the polls, the candidates would never leave there. I approved of the several comments stating that the country isn't truly a democracy at the federal level, but a republic, because at least to some degree, it's true. We're a strange blend of democracy and republic--democratic elections at many levels, modified by the original importance given to the power of the states. It's a touchy balance as evidenced by years of politics, but it's a crucial one. Even as a resident of Boston I don't want the priorities of Boston/LA/NYC to dominate the nation any more than I want the priorities of Arkansas, Alabama, or North Dakota. We're all part of a country of "United States", and all need to have a fair capacity to shape the policies affecting us. Pure democracy has a lot of value, but in a nation like this, with such a tremendous variety of localized interests, there's really very little lost by providing a microphone to the smaller, quieter participants to ensure they're heard in amongst the giants. Hell, our federal laws are created by 435 people in the House assigned by population, and 100 people in the Senate, 2 per state--if we can accept that division of legislative votes without any problem, why can't we allow the same number of votes per state to decide our presidency? I agree, the potential for electoral votes to be cast any way other than one decided a priori with no "decision" allowed on the part of the electors (either all votes to the winner of the state's popular vote, or divided between candidates by one of the existing schemes), certainly sounds questionable, and the all-or-nothing electoral voting policy itself is probably much less "democratic" than it could, maybe should, be. But that isn't the electoral college process itself. Understand the issues. (I was also very amused by the person who claimed "democracy is unfair"--basically saying we should get rid of the electoral college because it's not fair, and the people who say that deciding by popular vote is unfair should get used to it because democracy is inherently unfair; also the one suggesting we should make voting mandatory--another big step toward freedom) Stephen, Somerville The Electoral College should be abolished. If the popular vote means nothing, the U.S. isn't a true democracy, as we saw in the 2000 election. Let the American people decide who the president should be, not an antequated political body! Nadine, Allston Yes, the Electoral College should end. It should have ended a long time ago. It's not democratic. Jelena, Allston Yes. It is antiquated and as the last election proved, does not represent the will of the people. It's time to do away with the electoral college. Tara, Wakefield Although I fear the ignorance of the lazy masses in the United States, I do feel that as we demonstrate our might all over the world and insist upon democracy in nations like Iraq (but not China or Pakistan), the least we can do is demonstrate democracy, in its true form. This of course includes open elections (not faulty electronics and purposely uncounted votes), and also, the rule of the majority, which can only be established when one votes counts as one vote. It's time. Robin, Boston
|
Read the story: 
