|
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 3 We can't get rid of it, but I think we can certainly improve it. If we did away with the electoral college, then in a close race you'd have to recount the entire nation . . . a truly horrific thought. And for those who say our current president shouldn't be in the White House because he didn't get the majority of the votes, then just ask yourself if you were also outraged when Bill Clinton was re-elected in 1996 with 49.2% of the vote, or when he was elected in 1996 with 43.0% of the vote. Was there outrage when Nixon only got 43.4% in 1968? When Wilson only got 41.8% in 1912? How about back in 1860 when Abraham Lincoln failed to even get 40%? If we simply went with a vote count, then picture this situation. Everyone in Texas is crazy for Bush, they all vote for him, and let's say he gets 2 million votes. Now assume that voter apathy elsewhere results in only a handful of people (say 10,200) in each of the other states voting for Kerry. Okay, we've got 2,000,000 votes for Bush and 500,000 votes for Kerry. Should Bush win? Hell no. No one wants one state having so much say over the whole country. The electoral college prevents this nightmare scenario from occurring. In 2000, the numbers were much closer than in my example, but the phenomenon was the same. Gore got more votes, but the votes occurred in areas with higher voter turnout. Whether a candidate gets 51% or 99% of a state's votes (and independent of whether every voter votes or only a couple thousand voters vote), the candidate still carries the entire state and gets all the electoral college votes of that state (although this is not the case in a handful of states) representing all of the citizens of that state. Now I know you're thinking . . . well, what about Florida in 2000? Due to the electoral college, Florida (like all other states) can only wield influence proportional to its population. The issue in Florida was the manner in which it counted its citizens' votes, the fact that it made a difference in the outcome of the election was merely coincidental because the electoral college votes were so closely balanced between the other 49 states. The system that I'd propose would give each congressional district one electoral vote; so the candidate who gets the majority (or perhaps plurality) of votes in the district would then get one electoral college vote. This would force candidates to focus on the nation as a whole rather than just the big electoral college states. This would also eliminate the need for state-wide recounts. Instead, recounts would only occur in isolated congressional districts and would only be critical if the electoral college vote count from uncontested districts was really close. By the way, if you've gotten to this point, then thank you for actually reading all of this. Dan V., Waltham The Electoral College does not represent the majority vote. It regions and divides areas that have been massaged to slant elections. This Country stands for Democracy. Democracy is a country/government in which the supreme power is by the people. Sectioning the votes does not represent the majority vote. Regards! Deborah Gordon Deborah , Genoa Definitely. We can certainly not consider this nation democratic with a system that is more representative of a republic. This system is predicated on racism and classism, and must be abolished. Additionally, it disenfranchises voters throughout the nation. My vote for Kerry means little in Massachusetts (as would a vote for Bush), and yet it would mean everything in Iowa or Pennsylvania. I understand the argument that small states benefit from the process (as they get a minimum number of electoral votes), but what should matter most is what the majority of people want, even if they live in a metropolis (...and who I feel see the world through a better lens, being exposed to homosexuals, minorities, economic diversity, and, essentially, the realities of this nation.) Erin, Cambridge Why should someone who didnt win the election be president of the United States? Ooops! That already happened! Geoffrey, Roslindale The Electoral College is out of date with the times and should be eliminated. Presidential Elections should focus on popular votes, since this is how the winer is determined. In this day of reliable electronic tabulation, the Electoral College is an antiquated concept and should be abolished. Beverly, New Bedford Simple.. Yes, why not. No need in this day and age. None whatsoever and with no excuses. If we can't get rid of something this antiquated then we might as well 'hang it up'. Truly.. America's light these days seems dim whereby we blow the opportunity to light. Steven, Bellingham, MA. USA We don't have to get rid of the Electoral College to have fairer representation - just get rid of the "winner-take-all" provision that most states use. Getting rid of winner-take-all would mean that voters would have a more direct say in the election of the President - and it wouldn't require a constitutional amendment to do it. Several states have already abolished "winner-take-all" for Presidential elections, and Colorado's voting to do the same next month. It's time Massachusetts followed their vision and did the same! Advocate, NorthShore Simple.. Yes, why not. No need in this day and age. None whatsoever and with no excuses. If we can't get rid of something this antiquated then we might as well 'hang it up'. Truly.. America's light these days seems dim whereby we blow the opportunity to light. Steven, Bellingham, MA. USA Not if it is replaced by direct elections. Since the electoral college gives a candidate with thin majorities in many states an edge over one with overwhelming support in a few large states, it encourages the election of presidents with a broad national appeal and makes the dominance of one region over another less likely. Howard Baker's remark "Any system which favors one citizen over another or one state over another, is . . . inconsistent with the most fundamental concept of a democratic society." is particularly ludicrous, since is was made to the Senate, and institution which by its nature gives the votes of citizens of small states more weight than those of large ones. Is anyone calling for the abolition of the Senate? Our electoral system has helped hold the country together (with one major interruption) for 216 years, despite huge differences in interests and believes between the various regions of the country. It also limits the damage caused by a contested election. Imagine the endless challenges, recounts and lawsuits that would follow a close election under a direct election system; with the ability to scrounge the country for any votes that seem questionable, the parties involved would turn every close election into a national orgy of litigation. The problem of "faithless electors" could probably be addressed by simply automating their function; a district based system of electoral votes might also be workable. But direct election by popular vote in a recipe for disaster; maybe that's why most of the worlds democracies use a parliamentary system which functions more like our electoral college than a direct election. PCL, Framingham Get rid of it, absolutely!!! It is an out-dated formality, and it serves no purpose now. Sam, Waltham
|
Read the story: 
