|
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 5 Would we then get rid of the Senate too? The electoral college exists to attempt to evenly weigh the population and the individual states so that the most populous states can't control the entire country. If it weren't for the college a candidate could just make overtures that appease the coasts and totally ignore all states in between. It is the same reason the Senate exists. I assume that one who was for the end of the electoral college would be equally for the end of the Senate, which I hear nobody complaining about. Secondly, I don't know why people seem to think the popular vote means anything from any past elections. The electoral college does exist! Don't assume that voters are so ignorant as not to know this. Being in a state that Kerry is certain to win this election I know that my individual vote does not matter. I am 100 times more likely to vote 3rd party this election in an attempt to show my disdain for the status quo, however I would never dream of "wasting" my vote if I was voting in a battleground state. Thus, the fact that there is an electoral college is changing my vote, making it impossible to derive any true "facts" regarding what my vote means by counting the total votes for each candidate. I know many other people who do this, especially in attempts to get 3rd party candidates matching funds or ballot recognition in the future. Many people also do not bother to vote at all in states where one candidate is projected to win by a landslide and get all of the electoral votes. Thus, you can not assume anything from the popular vote. Over 3,000 people in Nevada voted "none of the above" in 2000. We can try to assume that Gore would've won, but it doesn't work that way. Same as people assuming that Nader cost Gore and Perot cost Bush Sr., you don't know how people would vote if there wasn't the college. Lazlo, Watertown I think it should be abolished. It's about time that the voice of the voting citizens, not partial politicians, have final say over who leads us. It was ridiculous that W's brother's Secretary of State had the final word last election. Mike, Quincy Yes, it time to abolish the Electoral College. The vote for president should be a nation-wide vote with no state boundries. The areas with greatest population density stand to gain, since those are the areas the presidential candidates would be most likely to campaign. Additionally, it would be nice to make the election system a bit more favorible to a third party candidate. The current system has the weakness that a vote for a third party candidate can be "wasted". A better system, used in some countries, would be if people ranked their top choices. People would only vote once, but the election would be determined in several rounds. In the first round, the candidate with the least number of first place votes would be eliminated from all ballots. Each round one candidate would be eliminated. This system has been determined to be the fairest by mathamaticians. The easiest way to implement such a system would be with a computer to count the votes. GG, Boston Doing away with the Electoral College would be a disaster. We would still be arguing over the last election without it. Further more, it is part of the ingenius system of checks and balances that seperate the brances of government to wisely check their power. The Electoral College checks the power of the "mobs" (Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, special interests, and their passions) while preventing the most popular states from ruling over the smaller ones. The liberal idiots who suggest the abolition of the Electoral College should move to Europe where the political climate is more suitable for them. Thanks. Larry , Rockfor/Illinois The founders not only wanted to prevent the "mob rule" mentality that would have allowed the metro areas to dominate elections- they also recognized how dangerous an ingnorant and uneducated people could be to these elections. Even more true today as so may continue to get there news/commentary from the likes of dan rather ,CNN and Michael moore. Tim, nh "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the decision." --Ben Franklin Keep the electoral college; by shifting power to major population centers, the needs of important but less-populated regional areas like the midwest (Breadbasket of America) are ignored, leading to an unhealthy imbalance in political priorities. Alexis, Hingham NEVER! Those dead old white guys were brilliant and prescient to come up with the Electoral College. Regional and state interests are as vital to the harmony of our Republic as the popular will. Minority rights and diversity (in their original meanings) have a last measure of protection through this "peculiar institution." Don't believe me? Please note that most of a map of the U.S. -- including Alaska and Hawaii -- is one color, and a handful of heavily-populated states another. I don't think the people of Oklahoma or Kansas would take kindly to having their entire future dictated to them by New Yorkers and Californians. Roderick, Alexandria I think the electoral college should definitely be placed in the history books. It may have served some worthwhile purpose originally but it should be abolished and then we can honestly proclaim to be a democracy. Rita, Florissant The electoral college is ridiculously outdated. Voters in states like Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania are pandered to by the political parties while the populations in "decided" states are ignored. If thirty percent of the people in Massachusetts or Texas vote contrary to their fellow citizens, their voices should matter. Rural populations in selected states should not decide the election for the rest of us. Unfortunately, it seems like we have become too lazy and passive as a people to stand up to the interest groups and allow our voices to be heard. Steve, Attleboro, MA In his book, "War and the American President," Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. proposes a revised electoral college that would disincentivize the gaming of votes from populous states while still preserving the representation of smaller states. Basically, it focuses on preventing "the popular-vote loser from becoming the electoral-vote winner. The solution is simply to award the popular-vote winner a bonus of two electoral votes for each state and the District of Columbia." (Schlesinger, p. 102) Under such a "bonus" plan, this national pool of 102 electoral votes would be awarded to the winner of the popular vote, which would, in turn, balance the existing state bonus (the two electoral votes already conferred on each state regardless of population). Christian, Malden
|
Read the story: 
