Bulgarian Opposition Files No Confidence Vote Xinhua Take a look at an interesting article we found.
Michigan revote DOA? MSNBC Take a look at an interesting article we found.
Mugabe May Be Ousted Peacefully The Independent Take a look at an interesting article we found.
Opinion polls claim to take the temperature of the country, but if you read the fine print we're sampling a miniscule amount of the population.
April 08, 2008
It’s always nice to get something as important as a presidential election decided by a compromise, but that’s exactly how it’s been done since the Electoral College was dreamed up.
The men who drafted the Constitution debated several formats for electing the president and vice president. One option was having Congress vote for a chosen few, or just throwing it open to the general population.
In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton wrote: "A small number of persons, selected by their fellow citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations."
In other words, "We the People" were too dumb for such an important task all by ourselves, so they came up with the Electoral College at the Constitutional Convention in 1787.
Under the initial proposal, you cast your ballot for electors, who had two votes each. The candidate with the most votes won, and the second place finisher became the vice president.
That was changed by the 12th Amendment, ratified in 1804, and then it sort of evolved into the confusion we have today. Each state has the power to determine how their electors are chosen. Big states like California can have a stupendous 55 votes, while the smaller states can have an insignificant three votes each — which makes them, largely, inconsequential.
After the Founding Fathers did their thing, we began to notice a few flaws in the process.
Neither Thomas Jefferson in 1801 nor John Quincy Adams in 1825 got the required 270 out of 538 Electoral Votes needed to be elected President. So the House of Representatives decided it.
In 1888, Democratic incumbent Grover Cleveland and running mate Allen G. Thurman won the popular vote by 95,713 votes. This little fact was overlooked since he lost the Electoral College by 65 votes and William Henry Harrison was sworn in.
After the 2000 election, when Al Gore received more popular votes than George Bush, and the controversy over Ohio’s electoral votes in 2004, the cry for reform is getting louder.
Some think the system needs tweaking, not an overhaul. And there’s a plan afoot to reorganize the states. This would correct the over and under representation of certain states, so the Electoral College would give the small fries a larger say, if not an equal say.
Others prefer a clean slate, with a purely popular vote that would give everyone an equal say. Most of these people, of course, believe we're a democracy. We're not. We're a representative republic, based on democratic principles.
With that in mind, Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) is gaining support. All you do is list all your candidates in the order you favor them. Then, on the night of the election, all first choices are counted. All the “losers” votes are then transferred to their second choices and you continue until one of the candidates has a majority.
Sound crazy? It’s already being used in Australia, Ireland, Papua New Guinea, Fiji and San Francisco. And both McCain and Obama are for it. The voting machine manufacturers are on board, too, because we’ll need all new machines.
Naturally, this doesn’t by any means cover every possible reform out there. A lot of it is as complicated as trying to describe the Electoral College itself.
Clearly we could use some answers from our membership. Of course, you’ll have to tell me what state you’re from, so I can weigh your opinion accordingly.
Share the Eye:
Ohio Voter on '60 Minutes' Huffington Post Take a look at an interesting article we found.
Hanging Chads hangingchads.blogspot Take a look at an interesting article we found.
Mother of All Vote Frauds whatreallyhappened.com Take a look at an interesting article we found.
"We're a representative republic, based on democratic principles. "
THANK YOU for writng the a...
Apr. 08, 2008 1:24 PM
How would you reform the electoral system?
43% 7% 21% 29%
I'm from California.
Last year I served as an "election official" which is a glorified way of saying I manned the polling station. One selection on the ballot resulted in a run-off election. The cost to the taxpayers was almost the same as the first election. But since it was for one office, (a community college trustee position) the turn out of voters hardly justified the cost. My polling station hardly had enough voters to justify the poll workers assigned to the station.
I'm not convinced that most voters understood the issues in the community college trustee race. I'm not convinced any one really cared unless they had some direct connection to the community colleges, even though the trustees control a large fund of tax payer money.
We had election materials and ballots in several languages printed just for the runoff, (obviously, costly). Everyone requested an English language ballot.
The Instant Runoff Voting concept would have been a better, no-cost way to decide the outcome. The outcome a few weeks later was probably the same outcome that would have happened if there had been Instant Runoff Voting, even though a lot less people turned out to vote the second time.
Although I will admit that a runoff has a benefit in a major office campaign. What if the voters change their minds by the time of the runoff election? The IRV defeats that possibility.
My experience is anecdotal and strictly my opinion based on my perception.
Spinner said...
It so happens that, at the moment, I am reading "Adams vs Jefferson" by John Ferling. He describes the election of 1800 as one of the most contentious elections in US history. With Adams representing the Federalists and Jefferson representing the Republicans, it may have been simply a choice between political philosophies (strong central gov. vs states rights) except for Hamilton who led the extreme wing of the Federalists. Seems that he was an incredible behind-the-scenes sort of power that figured if the southern first votes all went to Jefferson, and the northern first votes went to Adams, then Charles Pinkney would win with the second votes allowed in that original electoral college scheme. Thus he tried to steer things that way. Didn't work, but it does give one pause about going with second and third choices, bringing about a winner that no one really wants.
Also, I heard an interesting NPR interview the other day in which doing away with the electoral college was discussed. One person said that if it was, the larger states with the large cities and population would control everything because why should candidates care about WY, RI, and the Dakotas if there are so few votes there anyway. He postulated that the smaller states would loose even the little clout they now have.
Bottom line, I don't know what the answer is but I do think something has to change. We are 50 states with 250,000,000 people, not 19 states with 5,000,000. Things are not as simple.
"We're a representative republic, based on democratic principles. "
THANK YOU for writng the above line. I can't believe the amount of people that don't know & then argue with me that I AM WRONG.
Personally I know & understand the words to the Pledge & it says "And for the REPUBLIC for which it stands."
I am just happy that someone finally stated how our goverment is actually set up.
I'm not sure if I'm for getting rid of the Electorial College altogether even though I am from the one of smaller states ~ WI.
IRV sounds interesting but then again I am wishy washy in my opinions up to the last minute & if a candidate does/says something that I feel is stupid they would drop down a few spaces on my list... It would be hard for me personally to do.
I'm not sure what the answer should be ~ I do agree with something tha to would give more of the working Midwestern area people a bit of a larger voice though.
more on the honor rollQuote: "Neither Thomas Jefferson in 1801 nor John Quincy Adams in 1825 got the required 270 out of 538 Electoral Votes needed to be elected President. So the House of Representatives decided it."
Yes, but Thomas Jefferson was a good president. You think we should have elected Aaron Burr? Wasn't he indicted for treason in 1807? I think congress made a wise decision. Whose house is on the nickel? Jefferson's, not Burr. I rest my case.
Speafish your cooments bring up the following ?'s though ~
In retorspect & History has shown that Congress made a "wise decison" but what if Burr was chosen?
Would Burr have been Indicted had he been President?
Wouldn't he be on the Nickel instead of Jefferson?
Although acquitted was it due to his Political Position or lack of being proved guilty?
He also was never charged for a form of Manslaughter in the Hamilton Matter he also kept his position as VP after that happened. Would he have done the 10 paces against Alexander Hamilton if he was President? If he did would he have finished out the Presidency?
That’s best lesson a young person can learn is that we are not a democracy, we are a representative republic; oddly fighting a war to bring democracy to other nations, when we ourselves don’t yet have it right. Every four years we rally around our favorite candidates and listen to there speeches and their scandalous past. Find hope in their words and hang on to them in hopes that in January they stand on the capital steps and raise their hand, “I (insert best persuader name here) do solemnly swear, or affirm, to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States of America to the best of my ability so help me god.†But when you go to the polls on election day all excited to stand up for your candidate and praise his/her name by placing your vote for them, did you ever think that hey my vote might not count, or it may count but not as much as say the state next to mine. Say if you’re republican (at least you can admit it, that’s the first step towards recovery) and your state goes democrat in the general election then it can be argued that your vote was counted but for the rest of the election night you have no say in who becomes president. Because your state gave its electoral votes to the other candidate, the candidate you were not for. 270 is the magical number to become president in this country, not 120,000,000. In my opinion, we need to set up the college so if you win the popular vote (hint the word “popularâ€) you win the presidency. Of course you could argue that each state sort of has its own popular election and that is how the candidate gets the electoral votes from that state… but then again how is it that California gets more votes than Kentucky? Population? Yes! So honestly we need to make the election more of a “national†election were each person has their say that way it would be clear cut and dry win for that certain candidate. Of course let me create a quick poll from yesterdays Peterman’s eye and then ask the other well represented states what they think and get back to you.