Time to Change the Electoral College System
... but this is not an endorsement of a strict popular vote system.
We really do not have a problem with the Electoral College, in theory, although it has its pros and cons like any other system would, such as electing to the highest political office someone with the least votes nationally every several generations or so. However, now that chaos could ensue if that oddity of the Electoral College should occur again and legislatures -- like in Virginia -- are now using gamesmanship to alter the system for political favor, many people are saying it's time to make the system clearly simple, in other words, whoever gets the most votes nationally wins the election, period. That kind of system, too, would not be without problems, especially if the vote count were to be unimaginably close, one could imagine every little county auditor in the nation suddenly trying to empower themselves through backroom ballot box shenanigans, and then the entire nation would be Florida of 2000 instead of just one or a handful of states.
The Constitution should be changed to make the rules uniform across the board, so that Maine and Nebraska cannot have different rules, and state legislatures cannot try to game the system for partisan gain, but keep the system essentially the same, in other words, winner-takes-all in the individual states, with possibly, a strict number system from the actual vote count with no actual college of electors or delegates. Basically, keep the electoral system without the college, and call it by a different name.
Update (about 6 hours after publication): We still like a constitutional change to tighten up the electoral system from possible gamesmanship, but with the revision we're hedging a little about abolishing the college and replacing it with a numerical formula that wouldn't need human electors or delegates, if for no other reason than the long tradition that would be lost. Of course, the risk of an elector going against his state's popular vote would still be there if the college was kept in place, but on the other hand maybe there would be a good reason for an elector to do just that, considering what happened in Florida, 2000.
[revised on 1/25/2013]
If possible, please, consider contributing to the Party of Commons by sending a check or money order ($10 recommended) to Mark Greene's Party of Commons or $10 to the Director of Elections Campaign that will be on the ballot in 2015 (to Mark Greene for Director of Elections); for either address, write to P.O. Box 612, Bellevue, WA 98009. Thank you!
Mark is probably the only politician in Washington that had the temerity to keep the 2004 election shenanigans in the news as late as 2012 and to call out names. Help us solve the mystery of "The Other Curious Election of 2004" (WA 9th Congressional District U.S. Rep. primary) by contacting real journalists and asking them to look into it. Elections are too important for shams to be ignored and for accountability to be neglected.
We really do not have a problem with the Electoral College, in theory, although it has its pros and cons like any other system would, such as electing to the highest political office someone with the least votes nationally every several generations or so. However, now that chaos could ensue if that oddity of the Electoral College should occur again and legislatures -- like in Virginia -- are now using gamesmanship to alter the system for political favor, many people are saying it's time to make the system clearly simple, in other words, whoever gets the most votes nationally wins the election, period. That kind of system, too, would not be without problems, especially if the vote count were to be unimaginably close, one could imagine every little county auditor in the nation suddenly trying to empower themselves through backroom ballot box shenanigans, and then the entire nation would be Florida of 2000 instead of just one or a handful of states.
The Constitution should be changed to make the rules uniform across the board, so that Maine and Nebraska cannot have different rules, and state legislatures cannot try to game the system for partisan gain, but keep the system essentially the same, in other words, winner-takes-all in the individual states, with possibly, a strict number system from the actual vote count with no actual college of electors or delegates. Basically, keep the electoral system without the college, and call it by a different name.
Update (about 6 hours after publication): We still like a constitutional change to tighten up the electoral system from possible gamesmanship, but with the revision we're hedging a little about abolishing the college and replacing it with a numerical formula that wouldn't need human electors or delegates, if for no other reason than the long tradition that would be lost. Of course, the risk of an elector going against his state's popular vote would still be there if the college was kept in place, but on the other hand maybe there would be a good reason for an elector to do just that, considering what happened in Florida, 2000.
[revised on 1/25/2013]
If possible, please, consider contributing to the Party of Commons by sending a check or money order ($10 recommended) to Mark Greene's Party of Commons or $10 to the Director of Elections Campaign that will be on the ballot in 2015 (to Mark Greene for Director of Elections); for either address, write to P.O. Box 612, Bellevue, WA 98009. Thank you!
Mark is probably the only politician in Washington that had the temerity to keep the 2004 election shenanigans in the news as late as 2012 and to call out names. Help us solve the mystery of "The Other Curious Election of 2004" (WA 9th Congressional District U.S. Rep. primary) by contacting real journalists and asking them to look into it. Elections are too important for shams to be ignored and for accountability to be neglected.
Comments