This has been a really bitter election year, a really bitter and divisive 4 years for that matter. Here's something to consider: I'll bet you the upcoming election results will NOT end the bitterness, but will intensify it. Here's why....the electoral college might well crown one man the duly-elected "winner" while the popular vote will say the other candidate really won.
So what exactly is this electoral college? It was our Founding Father's way of putting a layer between the common man, the actual voter, and the election process. They didn't actually trust the common man. They were afraid a tyrant would somehow get control of a party and be able to manipulate enough uneducated naive voters to win the popular vote, and this was their way of being able to override such vote rigging. (They were a very suspicious / paranoid bunch!)
FYI, in the election of 1876 Rutherford B. Hayes had a quarter-million fewer popular votes, but won the electoral college vote 185-184. In the election of 1888 Benjamin Harrison had 80K fewer popular votes, but won the electoral college vote by a lopsided 233-168. And more recently George W. Bush won the election of 2000 with 500K fewer popular votes, but with 5 more electoral votes, 271-266.
I'm seeing signs something similar might happen next month. They say Obama and Romney are neck-and-neck in popular votes, but the number of solid Obama states has many more electoral votes than Romney's solidly red states. Regardless of which candidate you / I prefer this election year, I just think that's wrong.
So why don't we just do away with the electoral college and vote directly for president? Because it would take a Constitutional Amendment, which would require a super majority of state legislatures and congress, and BOTH parties have benefited at one time or another from the screwy electoral college process. Both see they have more to lose than to gain. In short, nothing is going to change.
Sharp as our Founding Fathers were, I'm thinking they bungled this one, at least as seen through modern eyes.
S
Actually I think the idea of the electoral college was more so that little states (like Delaware or Rhode Island at the time) would matter slightly more. Otherwise pretty much the most populous states (Virginia at the time) would decide who was president. Of course that probably meant more back in 1789 than it does in 2012.
ReplyDeleteYou're exactly right PT. That was one of their motives for having an electoral college. But from what I've read it was secondary to the possible hijacking by unscrupulous candidates.....ummm....like we have today.
ReplyDeleteS
The EC also forces candidates to concentrate their effort on the states that are not a lock. States like NJ are left out, and voters who favor the "losing candidate" tend to stay home skewering the "popular vote" result. We should throw out the EC...but you are right, we won't.
ReplyDeleteI think the compromise would be to have electoral votes proportional to a state's popular vote. That way even in a "red" or "blue" state everyone's votes would matter for something. The downside is it would likely be impossible to get to the magic number of 270 for any candidate.
ReplyDeleteThomas Jefferson called the Electoral Collage an ink stain on the Constitution. Later, the Electoral College handed him the presidency.
ReplyDeleteIf anyone here in Florida mentions a hanging or digital or dented chad, I'm running.
ReplyDeleteTo the nearest liquor store.