For any of you nonpolitical junkies out there, I will break down the electoral college for you. It is pretty much a group of people chosen to vote for the president and vice president based on how the state they are from voted.
So what does this really mean? Well for Texas, it means Democrats just shouldn't show up to vote. For California, it means Republicans just shouldn't show up to vote. Very few states actually swing back and forth between a democrat winning or a republican winning. The states that do though are so originally called 'swing states'.
The red states are the states that overwhelmingly vote for Republican and the blue are for the democrats. Yellow states are the swing states. Unless you live in a swing state, your vote only counts if you are voting for the party that is going to win your state. For example, if you live in Georgia, the Republican candidate is almost ALWAYS going to win. Therefore, if you are a democrat, there's truly no point in showing up to vote.
But, if you are in a swing state, such as Ohio, absolutely show up! Your state could swing either way, so you NEED to show up in support of your party.
Now you may ask, what the big issue about this is? The big issue is we can't all live in Ohio, Iowa, and Florida (swing states). The truth of the matter is that democrats live in the South, and Republicans live on the West Coast. So how is it fair to those people if their vote truly doesn't count? It's not. And of course I'm not saying the system needs to be perfect. That's impossible! But it could be a little more fair.
Not to mention that there is a possibility that the president who didn't win the majority of votes could win the presidency. Is that crazy or what? It doesn't happen very often, but the fact that it even can happen?! That's so absurd. Give the people who they want! And who earned the majority of individual votes to be there.
Let us be real though, people have to go out and vote. Your vote obviously really can't count if you didn't even cast one. So before anybody starts complaining, make sure you stood in line to cast your ballot. What we need to do is create a more accurate system. Yeah, this system is reliable, but is that all we want in the system that picks the leader of our country? We need more. People should want more for this country. This just isn't another job in our economy. It is THE job.
Yet, the Electoral College takes a little bit of that away. Especially with the all or nothing rule. Too many people might not know about Nebraska, but they got it figured out. So does Maine. They section their states off where their electoral votes are chosen by districts. That way, the vote is more narrow. For example, if this were to happen in South Carolina, let's say that district 1's majority voted for a democrat, but district 2's voted for a Republican, each district gets their own electoral votes to be cast the way they voted. This localizes the vote. Which isn't a half bad start to reform.
But, as most humans fear change, the country fears change. The electoral college is not even an issue up for discussion of changing because of more bigger issues at hand. But once the country gets back on a more positive track, it wouldn't hurt anybody to consider a much needed change.
I have an idea for what that much needed change should be. In the ideal world we need to get back to plain and simple individual votes. Sure, counting them is going to take time. But have we really gotten that lazy? Almost all votes are electronic now. And, while they might not be 100% secure, they are much quicker to count. Plus, with technology advancing as much as it is, there will come a day where where it is the safest thing around. Therefore, why can we not just count every single individual vote? With that, it doesn't matter the size of the state because the country is voting as a whole, not seperate entities.
Maybe one day change will come, but until then, we are stuck on Comedy Central watching The Electoral College.
Sources: http://www.electronic-vote.org/, http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2012/electoral-map.html, my notes.
I am sorry Alex but i disagree with your bashing of the electoral college. You make a good point in saying that a lot of states are solid Republican or solid Democrat so they do not matter, but I dont think a direct election is good. Our state of South Carolina and others alike will get no attention during the election and we will be letting cities such as New York, Los Angelos, and Chicago pick our president. I dont like the sound of that
ReplyDeleteI agree, but disagree to an extent to have change in the electoral college. The system we have in place now works in orderly fashion to suit the political aspect of elections. I would like to see a change in the electoral college to where people votes do count and not be mislead by being told that. Then ultimately get disappointed every four years because of the political likes of gerrymandering and other district aspects that gives the individual the same results every 4 years, voting one way instead of knowing there votes count directly as they serve to be indirect.
ReplyDeleteWe had pretty much the same argument! I agree, it doesn't have to be perfect. The way Nebraska and Maine run their election is not perfect, but I believe it is more fair to the people and it makes for a more fair election for the candidates.
ReplyDeleteExcellent blog and your presented your argument effectively. I understand why you would propose the Nebraska system but the only problem is gerrymandering would have excessive control over the outcome of elections.
ReplyDelete