posted on August 15, 2004 08:10:13 AM
In the last days of the 2000 presidential campaign, the prospect loomed that one candidate would win the popular vote but lose the Electoral College, and some people were ready. "One thing we don't do is roll over," said a campaign aide. "We fight." The plan was a massive blitz urging members of the Electoral College to vote with the will of the majority. That was what Republicans had in mind if George W. Bush won with the people but lost the presidency.
Things didn't turn out quite that way. But Republicans were onto something that only later dawned on Democrats: There is something wrong with a system that lets the 2nd place vote-getter claim victory.
As Al Gore jokes, "You win some, you lose some. And then there's that little-known third category." Bush was the first president since 1888 to lose the popular vote. That's one big reason why he entered office with only 51 percent of Americans considering his victory legitimate.
The 36-day fight over Florida was just a symptom of the underlying problem. "If we selected presidents like we select governors, senators, representatives, and virtually every elected official in the United States, Al Gore would have been elected president--no matter which chads were counted in Florida," notes George C. Edwards III in his new book, "Why the Electoral College Is Bad for America."
But we don't select presidents by a simple vote of the people. We conduct elections in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, and typically award candidates electoral votes only if they win an entire state. The overall popular vote is irrelevant. All that counts is the Electoral College, in which each state gets as many votes as it has members of Congress.
I wrote in defense of the Electoral College in 2000, but Edwards, a political scientist at Texas A&M University, has forced me to reconsider. And upon reconsidering, I think the critics have the better of the argument.
The rationales for the status quo don't stand up well to scrutiny. One is that we shouldn't mutilate the framers' sacred design. But they had no real clue what they were doing.
Stanford historian Jack Rakove, the premier scholar of the Constitutional Convention, describes the Electoral College as a "hastily sketched system" that "was obsolete within a bare decade of its inauguration." The founders rejected direct election only because they thought voters would know very little about the candidates--one of many expectations that proved wrong.
Another claim is that this system upholds federalism and decentralization. In fact, no state government would find itself weaker without the Electoral College, because it confers no meaningful authority on state governments.
Nor does it protect small states, which are granted proportionally more votes than large ones. Residents of Delaware and Idaho have no discernible common interests merely because they happen to live in small states. New York and Texas are both big states but, trust me, they don't feel a deep and special bond because of that. Americans vote on the basis of ideology, religion, race, economic concerns and the personal appeal of the candidates, not on some hazy "state" interest.
Most small states, in fact, get zero attention. During the 2000 general election campaign, says Edwards, only six of the 17 smallest states were visited by either presidential candidate. Many bigger ones (like Illinois) also got shortchanged--and are getting similar treatment this year.
Why? Because of the Electoral College. John Kerry will get millions of votes in Texas, but none of its electoral votes. No matter what Kerry does in California, he's almost guaranteed its electoral votes. Neither he nor President Bush has any incentive to waste much time in those places. They focus instead on the few states where the outcome is in doubt. Under a direct election, by contrast, candidates would go where the votes are--giving most Americans actual exposure to the campaign.
If the Electoral College didn't exist, no one would invent it. It violates the central principle of our election system--that every vote should count equally and that victory should go to the person with the most votes. And it produces no obvious compensating benefit.
We keep the Electoral College only because it doesn't frustrate the will of the majority very often. If it did, we would get rid of it.
But if the will of the majority is what truly matters, we shouldn't elect the president under a system whose only function is to periodically rise up and deny the people their choice. After 2000, Democrats understand that. Republicans might want to consider a change before they get their own hard lesson.
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
YOU CAN'T HAVE BULLSH** WITH OUT BUSH.
------------------------------
We the people, in order to form a more perfect Union....
.....one Nation indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for ALL.
posted on August 15, 2004 09:14:03 AM
logansdad, another great post.
But let's not forget that if electronic voting machines are used our votes just don't matter with or without the electoral college .
A woman on the radio the other day told how she did a demonstration for some congressmen or officials of some sort.....she broke in to the voting program and changed things in 37 seconds!
She says she can get it down to 3-4 seconds.
posted on August 15, 2004 10:17:49 AM
The electoral college has been around since 1789. Now the democrats are crying because it isn't fair. Go figure. They lose and since 2000 they have been crying foul....Maybe just maybe only democrats should vote then they would win...but then again.........
"I wrote in defense of the Electoral College in 2000, but Edwards, a political scientist at Texas A&M University, has forced me to reconsider. And upon reconsidering, I think the critics have the better of the argument."
Who wrote this article speech writer for JK
Just another flip flop
posted on August 15, 2004 11:50:57 AM
crowfarm that is incorrect... no one has hacked the program yet... but there is a bounty for the first hacker to do so...
posted on August 15, 2004 01:05:02 PM
Libra, stick to the sherry and stay out of the gin !
People of BOTH parties have been complaining about the electoral college long before 2000.
Now for the really dumb part.....
"Who wrote this article speech writer for JK
Just another flip flop"
This is how a neocon like Libra views doing research, studying many points of view and then deciding that you will change your mind.
It's called "thinking", NOT flip flopping.....Libra, try it!
Did you even READ the OP?
Libra, change is not a big scary thing, sometimes it's good.
I bet you were the type at work who hates anything new or different...."We always did it this way" (whether or not it was stupid, inefficient or out of date).
posted on August 15, 2004 01:18:45 PM
No, twelve, you are incorrect, it has been hacked.
But it doesn't really matter.....what matters is that with electronic voting machines we ALL, Republicans, Independents, Democrats, we ALL lose the right to have our vote count.
Do you REALLY want the election to go to the party with the best hacker ?
posted on August 15, 2004 03:46:48 PM
Libra: The electoral college has been around since 1789. Now the democrats are crying because it isn't fair. Go figure. They lose and since 2000 they have been crying foul....Maybe just maybe only democrats should vote then they would win...but then again.........
Libra, the article was posted in a Republican newspaper...
If you look at the history as to how the electoral college was formed, you will see the founding fathers did not want political parties and you will also see that the founding fathers did not think that everyday people (you and me) knew enough about the candidates running for office in order to pick the best one. In other words the founding fathers thought those voting were stupid. If you still want to believe we the people choose the president you are wrong. We choose which members of the electoral college cast their vote for president.
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
YOU CAN'T HAVE BULLSH** WITH OUT BUSH.
------------------------------
We the people, in order to form a more perfect Union....
.....one Nation indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for ALL.
[ edited by logansdad on Aug 15, 2004 03:51 PM ]
posted on August 15, 2004 03:55:41 PM"One thing we don't do is roll over," said a campaign aide. "We fight." The plan was a massive blitz urging members of the Electoral College to vote with the will of the majority. That was what Republicans had in mind if George W. Bush won with the people but lost the presidency.
Furthermore Libra, if you look at the opening line it states the Republicans would have been protesting if Bush won the popular vote but lost the electoral college. So if the situation happened in reverse - Bush loosing instead of Gore - you and your people would be complainig. But I guess you failed to read that part of the article.
In my opinion the electoral college is an outdated system. It had it usefulness 200 years ago, but times have changed and there is no need for it. I guess the Republicans still want it because they, like the Founding Fathers, believe the voting class is stupid.
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
YOU CAN'T HAVE BULLSH** WITH OUT BUSH.
------------------------------
We the people, in order to form a more perfect Union....
.....one Nation indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for ALL.
posted on August 15, 2004 07:55:59 PM
The electoral college prevents the big states from controlling the gov. The states could do away with it if they wanted, they don't.
It's much easier to fix any kind of paper ballot than it is an encrypted digital record.
posted on August 15, 2004 08:46:24 PM
Agree desquirrel and that's been mentioned over and over to those who want to do away with it.
------------
logansdad said:
you will see the founding fathers did not want political parties
I sure would like to see proof of THAT statement. There WERE NO political parties at that time. I've NEVER read where any of them have stated/been quoted as saying they didn't WANT them.
and you will also see that the founding fathers did not think that everyday people (you and me) knew enough about the candidates running for office in order to pick the best one. In other words the founding fathers thought those voting were stupid.
Another false statement. Oh brother you come up with some doozies...yes you do.
It wasn't because they thought the people were stupid but rather it took a while for any information about any candidates to get around at that time. They didn't have the news coverage, media coverage that we do now.
But that certainly doesn't mean they thought people were stupid....just that they wouldn't have all been informed on the issues/candidates in order to make an educated/intelligent vote because they wouldn't have had access to all the information.
posted on August 15, 2004 09:38:48 PM
Well logansdad there you go including me in that post about the Republicans. I vote, who wins is up to the other voters. I only have 1 vote. I do not complain but try and get along with the party in Washington. This is the problem all this last 4 years instead of trying to improve our country Democrats complained. Voted against a bill because it was from the Republicans. Nobody wanted to do the best for the country. That is wrong. I sure hope who ever gets in everyone rallies around him and gets this country in the right direction. You and your party have been complaining and bitching since the end of the last election. Get over it and try and get along. But it is to late now.
Now tell me if Bush wins again will be listening to all this for the next 4 years. I sure hope not. The name calling is horrible.
So you want the movie stars in California to elect your president. Well me to - NOT. If you think your vote doesn't count then don't vote.
Crow all you do is insult me and it is getting old. Take your gin and mix it with vodka with a whiskey chaser and maybe you will straighten out your mind and realize that people have different opinions than yours. I am entitled to mine and further more I do not insult you and if I did I am sorry. I would like to tell you I haven't had a drink of hard liquor or beer for 30 years and I don't take drugs. I hope this clarifies how I feel.
Boy you sure know how to wreck a good day. You must have a fried brain.
Evidently you didn't read logansdad post because this I wrote in defense of the Electoral College in 2000, but Edwards, a political scientist at Texas A&M University, has forced me to reconsider.[b] And upon reconsidering, I think the critics have the better of the argument[/b[. was in his post.
"Libra, change is not a big scary thing, sometimes it's good.
I bet you were the type at work who hates anything new or different...."We always did it this way" (whether or not it was stupid, inefficient or out of date). "
I am sorry crow but if you have read any posts in here I have done many things in my 45 years of Hospital service and in that 45 years I had many changes. I wrote procedure manuals along with many other duties. Probably more changes that you will ever see in your life.
So before you talk about me and what I did you had better look at your life which with a user name like you have it must have been a blast.
posted on August 15, 2004 09:52:55 PM
Libra, if you can post like you do sober than maybe you better start drinking!
Then maybe a complete stranger in a chat room wouldn't have the power over you to ruin your day.
Then maybe you could point out where Logansdad said movie stars in California should elect our president.
Then maybe you could explain this, "Evidently you didn't read logansdad post because this {B}I wrote in defense of the Electoral College in 2000, but Edwards, a political scientist at Texas A&M University, has forced me to reconsider{/B}.[b] And upon reconsidering, I think the critics have the better of the argument[/b[. was in his post"
Then maybe you could explain how a person's ID reflects their entire life.
posted on August 16, 2004 07:51:35 AMIf you think your vote doesn't count then don't vote.
Never did I say my vote did not count. I feel this country is democracy where the people get the right to choose who they want to represent them. My vote alone does not make a difference but my vote along with those that also vote the same way can make a difference. Every other elected office in this country is elected by the people not by some "other source". Why should the Presidency be any different?
You and your party have been complaining and bitching since the end of the last election. Get over it and try and get along. But it is to late now.
Yeah, but it was the Republican party who thought the system would be unfair even before the 2000 election took place. If the situation was reversed the Republicans would be doing the same exact thing.
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
YOU CAN'T HAVE BULLSH** WITH OUT BUSH.
------------------------------
We the people, in order to form a more perfect Union....
.....one Nation indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for ALL.
