Election season is upon us. Sadly, Joe and I will be blissfully unaware of the presidential outcome until we decide to seek out the news on our honeymoon cruise ship. (We are voting using absentee ballots, FYI.) I cried myself to sleep after the last election…I can only hope that
- The outcome will be better and it will be the cherry on my honeymoon … OR
- Being in a tropical paradise with my new husband will snap me out of the post-election blues.
I’ve been thinking about this for awhile….I’m sure most of you are aware of this…but as a refresher….
“Both major political parties in the United States select their presidential candidates through a process of primary elections. However, voters do not directly select presidential nominees in these primaries. Instead, they choose delegates from their respective states who will attend a national party convention to nominate a presidential candidate for their party.”
So in the nomination process, there is a “safety net” so no hooligan candidates get in to the big dance. Also to my knowledge, there is nothing that states that these delegates have to follow the voting outcome of the individual state.
So, now that we have our two main-party candidates, we get to vote on them to pick a winner. But…not really.
“Instead of voting directly for a presidential candidate (and his or her vice-presidential running mate), voters in the fifty states and the District of Columbia vote for a slate of “electors” who are pledged to vote for a particular presidential ticket (president/vice-president team). The political parties in each state select a slate of electors. The electors selected by the party of the candidate winning the most popular votes in a state become the electors for that state.”
From the way I see it, the electoral college is an insult to the intellect of the American people. Again, there must be a safety net for fear the the imbeciles will chose a horribly unqualified candidate. Some say this reason is invalid because these electors are bound to cast their votes according to how their state voted, but really what are they bound by? (Can anyone comment to this?)
Others say that the electoral college is necessary so that the states retain a certain power and individuality in the presidential election process. If we took away the electoral college…
“…the significance of states and the candidates’ competition for support in key, “swing” states would disappear. Candidates would be inclined to simply run nationwide ad campaigns and visit large population centers.“
I really can’t contradict that…but really, how many states actually see candidates campaigning currently? At least if the candidates traveled to the large population centers, they could be accessible to more people. (e.g.: If you lived in rural Indiana, and presidential candidate A stopped in Indianapolis, I think you could drive the 1-2 hours to hear him speak.) It would be much better than the current model where states (like Indiana) are completely skipped over because the candidates assume they know how the people will vote, write the whole state off, and move on to Ohio where their efforts are put to much better use.
The figure below shows in the 2004 election how many times a candidate visited a certain state (purple hands) and how much money was spent there (green dollar signs).
Wow….it sure is a good thing we have swing states……..(-shakes head-)
Also, the system obviously is not fail-proof. (2000 election anyone?) But more interesting is this…
The closest the nation has ever come to abolishing the Electoral College occurred during the 91st Congress. The presidential election of 1968 had ended with Richard Nixon receiving 301 electoral votes to Hubert Humphrey’s 191. Yet, Nixon had only received 511,944 more popular votes than Humphrey, equating to less than 1% of the national total.
One percent of the votes equated to a victory by 110 electoral votes. ONE PERCENT! There is something wrong with that…
All I can say is this…
As a democracy that touts its belief that each of its citizens have a voice that can be heard and accounted for through his/her vote, I do not understand how America still has the electoral college. If I want to vote for Johnny No-name, the independent candidate, I want my one vote to make him be one vote close to winning. I want my vote to go towards his total. I want my vote to count for something.
Likewise, if I vote for the Republican candidate in a state that will undoubtedly go to the Democrats, I still want my vote to count. This is not a state-wide issue. This is a nation-wide election and whether or not my candidate gets support should not depend on how my neighbor votes.
I am tired of merely voting symbolically for a candidate. Too many Americans are disenfranchised by the government and the entire election process and these “safety nets” of delegates and electors are just perpetuating these feelings.
Give me a real vote. Give me a real say. Get rid of the electoral college.
Thoughts anyone?
The chart with money and visits really makes what you think is happening clear.
I thought they were not bound to vote but apparently there are laws in 24 states that say the state can kick that person out of office if they vote incorrectly.
I just learned this, Nebraska and Maine don’t do a winner take all format and break it out by district similar to a lot of states in the Democratic primaries.
And did you know that if no one gets the majority of the electoral college votes the House of Representatives votes until they get to a majority.
Sara, I urge you to research the real reason behind starting the electoral college (and I mean history books, not journalist dribble). Think about it for a second: Kansas does not have as many people as New York. Iowa doesn’t have as many as California. And South Carolina will never compare in population size to California. So what? Those people have no vote? Because technically, they won’t. Sure, they can drive to see candicates, but that’s not what the problem is. The candidates run the potential of completely leaving out States and Towns not in making a stop for a speech, but in hearing their wants and wishes. The people in New York, California, Texas, etc would rule the elections. Who would care about everyone else? It would be a freaking Prom Queen election. So I happen to like the Electoral College. Granted, I wish they would be required to vote in percentages for their states (Like if we had 2 votes and there was an almost 50/50 split, then the candidates would each get a vote.
Alexandra,
check out Federalist Paper #68
http://www.avagara.com/e_c/reference/00012601.htm
and Anti-federalist #72
http://www.wepin.com/articles/afp/afp72.html
Small states get a disproportionate number of electors due to the way the senate is setup (which was the point). You still have to get some big states and win the states with close margins.
No one has yet tried the strategy of California (55 votes), Texas (34), New York (31), Florida (27) Illinois (21), Pennsylvania (21), Ohio (20), Michigan (17), Georgia (15), New Jersey (15), and North Carolina (15) FOR THE WIN.
interesting… thanks for the info :]
Sara,
I enjoyed your post.
You make some good points about the electoral college. The primary reason the Framers included the Electoral College in the Constitution and the reason it remains important today is that it gives the states a voice as states in the electoral process.
The genius of the American system is that we have a mixed system with a strong central government with vibrant state and local governments. I believe it’s important for states to continue to have a voice as states in the American political process to maintain the dynamic of federalism that has made this country great.
I also think it’s great you found some good material at ThisNation.com to round out your argument. (I’m the author.)
Jon