Thursday, March 26, 2009
Divide (Electoral Votes) and Conquer? No, Obama Still Won
This is an interesting article about what would have happened if our electoral votes were split by district (like Nebraska and Maine) instead of a winner take all system. I am a particularly adament supporter of the electoral college, partially due to living in a small state. However, I do sympathize with voters who feel like their vote doesn't matter if they live in states where the election is decided long before a candidate is announced. I would support making the electoral college district based. This would still preserve the electoral system, while giving the individual more of a say in the Presidential election.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Once again it is disappointing to see your own selfish interests matter more to you than than democracy.
And your arguement for popular election isn't selfish? Once again you seem to think that our government is a pure democracy. While you may disagree with how the framers wrote the Constitution, the framers were concerned about tyranny of the majority existing in all branches of government. The reason for having the electoral college is to ensure that the people who choose to live Iowa, Nebraska, and even Oregon are not neglected in our political system. While a popular vote is inherently more democratic, it would also make us the United States of New York City. And given the extent of our financial crisis, I don't think we want that.
I agree with London on this one. While the popular vote is undoubtedly more democratic, ancient Athens proved that in reality direct democracy doesn't work. The fact that a countless number of people vote in elections without first informing themselves on the issues worries me. Colleen and I were talking about a girl the other day that voted for Obama because of his attractiveness. The electoral college not only provides for a more representative election, it also ensures that, if necessary, informed representatives instead of star-struck school girls are responsible for making the final decisions.
The Electoral College wasn't created out of a fear of tyranny of the majority. It was created because the Founders were elitists who didn't trust the populace to make informed decisions. This is an absurd tradition to continue today as information is available 24/7/365 on almost every topic one could care about thanks to television news and the internet.
Also, how is it selfish to want equality? I want 1 person = 1 vote. I guess slaves were just being selfish when they wanted freedom too.
And in response to your comments Katie, I argue two things. 1) The plural of anecdote is never data and 2) Based on your support for the Electoral College, you must be an advocate of repealing the 17th Amendment. Why should people be alllowed to vote directly for Senators, but not the president? This is a terrible inconsistency to have in our democracy. After all, States are very similar to the entire country in terms of demographics. Often the majority of the population lives in large metropolises, which therefore (and rightfully so) weild much greater influence in Senate elections.
Once again you claim that we have a democracy, when in fact we have a republic. When we elect an individual to Congress, we give them the right to vote on our behalf on pieces of legislation. The electoral college is the same thing. We vote to choose our electors, who we entrust to vote for President. The electoral college is extending the republican principle to the executive branch.
This arguement is pointless though, changing from an electoral college to a popular vote is almost impossible, due to the various constituencies effected. I posted this article because I think its a compromise between those who prefer populism, and those who prefer the electoral college.
Last time I checked, a Republic is a TYPE of democracy. I can't stand it when people justify disproportionate representation by saying "We're not a democracy, we are a republic." Bullhooey. A Republic is a form of democracy, alyways has been, always will be. Since when has a being a Republic meant one person's vote should count more than another's?
Once again I compare the Electoral College to the 17th Amendment. Before the 17th Amendment, Senators were elected via State Legislatures. This was another layer of representative democracy that the people thought was unnecessary, i.e. they removed the middle men and went with direct election.
There is no need for the Electoral College. People are informed enough to vote on their own behalf. Plus, those who argue that the Electoral College protects "small states" are misguided. The Electoral College ensures that 90% of states are decided before the election even begins. Therefore, regardless of many state's size, presidents do not campaign in them (when was the last time major resources were devoted to campaigning in Wyoming?!?). Rather, the Electoral College perpetuates the importance of a few swing states at the disadvantage of every other state in the Union. If the Electoral College didn't exist, all votes would matter equally, and therefore, would be courted equally.
I don't get to vote on the Budget, I didn't get to vote on the Stimulus Package, and I don't get to vote on any piece of legislation that passes through congress. In our republic, I voted to give someone else my right to vote. This is the way our system is laid out. We elect representatives who vote for us. I would argue that in designating our leaders, we are saying that their vote is more important than ours. We trust they will make good decisions.
The electoral college is just an extension of this system our founders created. When we vote for our electors, we are trusting them to make our decision.
Voting for House Reps and Senators is fair. 1 person = vote.
But when choosing the President, why should your vote count more than mine just because you are from Oregon and I am from New York? Under the Electoral College, that is exactly what happens and it is simply not fair.
Post a Comment