 |
| watchusplaygames.com |
After participating (for the 1st time) in the election of 2012, many an issue has been brought to this blogger's eyes. Namely, the ineptness of the Electoral College. The Electoral College was created by the Founding Fathers to guard against the rule of majorities, that much is understood. But to what degree? Save 2 states (ME and NE), the system is still winner take all to gain all the electoral votes of that state. I may go out and vote Gary Johnson, but my vote counted with the 3 other intelligent voters that also vote for Johnson, is irrelevant if most of the state voted for Obama. I want my vote to count, I want my vote to mean something and carry some importance if I am going to make the effort to stand in a 4 hour line to cast a vote. If I actually cared enough, I would cast an absentee ballot from some Floridian residence - but that would take 3 months to be counted, and that's another issue entirely. The Electoral College does not encourage voter turnout, especially if you are a resident of a safe state - (for example, a state that will always vote Republican in any given election) why show up to the polls if you're a Democrat? Let's be honest here. The ONLY election that matters to the American people is the Presidential election every 4 years, and even then less than half of the eligible voting population shows up to the polls. Can you blame them? If we live in Texas, the Republican voters will ensure that the Republican wins - if we live in California, the Democratic voters will see that the Democrat wins. The Electoral College eliminates any notion of external political efficacy. Why should we cast a vote if the vote will not count (save Ohioan or Floridian votes) and waste 4 hours of perfectly good Tuesday morning? The cost (time) does not measure up with the benefit (voting).
 |
| http://www.iolp.gsa.gov |
So how do we change the system to make sure that my vote, and your vote, and her vote can count in any state? The solution is simple, we change the very writing in the Constitution! I, here and now propose an Amendment to the Constitution - abolishing the Electoral College. That's right, I said it. Delete the very system that has selected 44 Presidents and begin anew. Well, not necessarily. Maine and Nebraska have it right. This blogger proposes that the US adopt a district voting plan - winner take all in each Congressional district. Lets use the state of Nebraska with 3 districts (Senate seats are irrelevant). Barack Obama wins the votes in 1 of the 3 Congressional districts in Nebraska. Gary Johnson wins the other 2. Obama gets 1 vote, Johnson gets 2, and this system continues through each state. Candidates split the districts votes of the states and each district counts as one vote. Now Obama cannot win all of Nebraska and leave Johnson empty handed, everyone wins. Better yet, every vote matters. The same would break down in Texas and California. The Republican may win the most districts, and thus the most votes, but at least the Democrat leaves the states with votes. Of course, with each state splitting their votes, the 270 winning total is way too high. With a system based on Congressional districts, ignoring the 2 mandatory Senate seats in each state, the winning total is more appropriate around 250.
Most of you ask, why change an age old system that's already elected 44 Presidents? As creatures of habit, why would American's want to change the current system of the Electoral College? The district plan ensures that everyone's vote carries significance. A Democratic vote in a Republican state will result in at least toward the 250 total. The district plan eliminates safe states, and reinforces our feeling of political efficacy. Our votes will count! The 4 hours, the cold morning, the never ending line, all worth it! All a candidate has to do is win one district and thus win 1 vote, and then couple that with votes won in other districts of other states and make a legitimate run! Not only does it better suit the voters, but the district plan also means that a 3rd party candidate can make a legitimate run for the White House. Even with 3 "leading" candidates, the first to exceed 250 still wins. This steps up the competition too, leading to more interesting debates. Instead of 2 old men droning on and on, we include a 3rd old man with unconventional viewpoints, and really spicing things up. Everyone wins. The Democrats have their candidate, Republican's their's and the 3rd party candidates all have a chance. Campaigns become more focused on all states, instead of living in Ohio and Florida, the candidates come to Kansas, a democratic presidential candidate steps foot in Texas... GASP! The campaign includes everyone, every single vote matters and the American people truly affect who becomes President.
Colby Chappell
I like that idea of district voting. If you could force every state to do that then i believe it would work. However if you do that then some districts may end up wasting there vote on a third party with no chance of winning nationally however if this were combined with instant runoff voting we may create the best possible way of electing a president.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the proposed change to the electoral college system of having district voting instead of state voting. it will better represent what the people want and avoid having an election like 2000 where one candidate can win the popular vote and lose the electoral vote.
ReplyDeleteColby;
ReplyDeleteWhile district voting could be a good idea, what about gerrymandering. If people now are already gerrymandering just for seats in the House, imagine what it will be like if districts determined presidential elections as well. The district plan may eliminate safe states, but it creates safe districts. I do agree that something does need to be done so that every person in this country has a fair say in the winner.
Gerrymandering will not alter the district plan. Romney wins all 4 conservative districts in a state, Obama wins the 3 democratic districts. Obama gets 3 votes, Romney gets 4. The lines of gerrymandering only guarantee that a certain party's candidate gets one vote.
ReplyDeleteAbby.
I thought you had commentary on the lack of encouragement for other parties in the safe states. Also I liked how you addressed the idea of people not wanting to change since it's been working for 44 presidents.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on wanting your vote to count as it is only indirect. However, I feel like the system in how the Electoral College is not going to change anytime soon, and feel most people are going to get the same results by default because if state tends to vote a certain way then you most likely know what the result is going to be.
ReplyDelete