by Len Hart, The Existentialist CowboyIf the 'President' is elected to represent the people of the United states, then he/she should be elected directly by the people. The Electoral College, in which electors represent states --not people --must be abolished and the 'office' of President elected directly. The voice of the people needs no proxy. The voice of the people must be be heard directly, loudly and often. Fears that the 'college' might elect a minority President are not merely speculative should the nation be so deeply divided that three or more candidates split the electoral votes among them --no one getting a necessary majority. Precisely that happened in 1824, attempted in 1948 and again in 1968. There are but two resolutions should it happen again:
- either one candidate could throw his electoral votes to the support of another before the meeting of the Electors, or
- the U.S. House of Representatives would select the president in accordance with the 12th Amendment.
Krugman looks at how the teapartying far right acolytes of Beck and Limbaugh could literally gain enough power to do what Republicans in California have done, saying, "In California, the G.O.P. has essentially shrunk down to a rump party with no interest in actually governing — but that rump remains big enough to prevent anyone else from dealing with the state's fiscal crisis. If this happens to America as a whole, as it all too easily could, the country could become effectively ungovernable in the midst of an ongoing economic disaster.Abolishing the electoral college and electing the 'President' directly is essential if these fatal flaws are to be addressed. There are several advantages to the direct election of the office of President.
--Rob Kall, Top-down blowback: The GOP Discovers that the Grassroots Bites Back,
- With the Electoral college, there is always the possibility that a minority president may be elected;
- Though it has not happened (to my knowledge) there is, nevertheless, a risk that "faithless" or "rogue" electors will cast ballots for whomever they prefer;
- The Electoral College is blamed for depressing voter turnout;
- and, most importantly, its failure to accurately reflect the national popular will.
Why I moderate comments
- SPAM: 'comments' that link to junk, 'get rich' schemes, scams, and nonsense! These are the worst offenders.
- Ad hominem attacks: 'name calling' and 'labeling'. That includes the ad hominem: 'truther' or variations!
Also see:
- A Spiritual Mind Movie
- How the US Became a Vassal State of China
- Terrorism is Worse Under GOP Regimes
- The US Army Document That Proves the US is the World's Number One Sponsor of World Terrorism
- Dissecting the Scrambled Brains of the GOP
- Why the CIA is the World's Number One Terrorist Organization
[w/LINKS] - Why the CIA is the World's Number One Terrorist Organization [PDF]
- How the GOP Pays Off its 'Base' of Elites
Add to Google
Add Cowboy Videos to Google 
Spread the word
4 comments:
Under the current system of electing the President, presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided "battleground" states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 "battleground" states. Similarly, in 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states and over 99% of their money in 16 states.
Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule enacted by 48 states, under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.
Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections.
In the past six decades, there have been six presidential elections in which a shift of a relatively small number of votes in one or two states would have elected (and, of course, in 2000, did elect) a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes--that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The Constitution gives every state the power to allocate its electoral votes for president, as well as to change state law on how those votes are awarded.
The bill is currently endorsed by over 1,659 state legislators (in 48 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. This national result is similar to recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado-- 68%, Iowa --75%, Michigan-- 73%, Missouri-- 70%, New Hampshire-- 69%, Nevada-- 72%, New Mexico-- 76%, North Carolina-- 74%, Ohio-- 70%, Pennsylvania -- 78%, Virginia -- 74%, and Wisconsin -- 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Delaware --75%, Maine -- 77%, Nebraska -- 74%, New Hampshire --69%, Nevada -- 72%, New Mexico -- 76%, Rhode Island -- 74%, and Vermont -- 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas --80%, Kentucky -- 80%, Mississippi --77%, Missouri -- 70%, North Carolina -- 74%, and Virginia -- 74%; and in other states polled: California -- 70%, Connecticut -- 74% , Massachusetts -- 73%, New York -- 79%, and Washington -- 77%.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 29 state legislative chambers, in 19 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Oregon, and both houses in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, and Washington. These five states possess 61 electoral votes -- 23% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
Anonymous sez...
...the President, presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. ...98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided "battleground" states.Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections.
That sums it up precisely and succinctly. Basically, the will of the people is moot. Now --candidates will still concentrate on more populous states but less so, I suspect, because the utter neglect of many smaller states voting the other way could be disastrous in any system that accurately reflects the will of the people. The question, again, is who elects the President and to whom is he/she responsible to --the states or the people?
Relatedly --there are many states whose electoral voice is routinely ignored by Presidential candidates. And combined their voice in Congress is all but ignored. The states might as well secede and form their own 'state'.
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.
I support that! The President, then, is responsible to the people, his electorate.
I appreciate the work of all people who share information with others.
Post a Comment