In November of 2000 the country and most of the world were turned upside down waiting on endless court battles on who will be the most influential position in the world. After a trip to the Supreme Court the decision was made final. We ended with a man that did not gain a victory in the populous vote, but did win a majority of the electoral votes. With all of this chaos brought us to a new retrospection to the way presidential elections are held and the pros and cons of our current system. Some have stated that the Electoral College should be removed to better represent the majority vote. Others have stated that a multi-party system would better serve the country and that the two-party system is the problem. I would say that I disagree with both of these statements. I will first say that the Electoral College was not the problem in the election, but it worked in exactly the way it was supposed to. Secondly, the two-party system is not a system that is enforced but more a natural effect of our form of republican government.
Looking at the figures of the 2000 election, we see that the nation was divided. One side was made up of conservatives with the religious fundamentalist, the individualist, the pro-lifers, and many other groups that believed in a candidate that was in tune with them. And, the other side was made up of liberals that included groups like the environmentalist, the unions, pro-choicers, and many more that believe in an alternate candidate. In the middle are people who are moderates, people that do not involve themselves in political issues until the time to decide the presidency. And, this group ends up dividing itself in to these two factions as well.
The vote totals showed that there was more then the issues that divided the country. Location also dictated how people voted. In the states with the greatest amount of voters in the metropolitan areas voted at a 55% - 65% rate for Al Gore, with areas like DC voting at an 85% to 9% for Gore and rural areas like Wyoming, Utah and Idaho had 68% for Bush. But, in states that were mixed with rural and metropolitan voters were the states that decided the election. Oregon, New Mexico, Wisconsin, and Iowa, were all states that selected Al Gore by less then 1%. The infamous Florida election was .1% difference. Not surprisingly the popular vote for the 2000 election was split evenly with a .51% difference, 48.38% to 47.87%. The electoral vote represented this split of the populous vote well. The closeness of the populous vote in these states is best described by the fact that if New Mexico, Wisconsin, and Iowa would have voted just 10,000 votes to the right, Florida would not of mattered. And, if 7000 more people voted for Gore in New Hampshire it would have been a one electoral win for him.
The popular vote being so close, the states became a player. With each of the states receiving minimum of three Electoral votes instead of just one for each district, it gives an electoral benefit for the small states, en masse, to help stop the “Favorite Son” syndrome and to protect the rights of the minority of the smaller states. Since George Bush captured more individual states he was able to win a majority of the Electoral vote. Even though the popular vote was a small victory for Gore, George Bush won the election because he appealed to a greater diversity of people. So, we see that the Electoral College did work the way it was designed to.
With the issue of the Electoral College addressed, I would like to dive into the issue of the Third and multi-parties. What some people are proposing is, if we had a Third party or a multi-party system it would be better for the political wellness of the country. I view the two-party system as a natural consequence of our form of Republic. With the need for a majority of the Electoral votes to keep the election from going to the House, factions need to work together to achieve their goals.
At the time of the creation of the Constitution there were no national parties, nor did the creators think that there would be. Just four years later, we had two, the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist. Two parties seemed to be the natural choice. The next move in the parties happened when the Anti-Federalist fell to the wayside and the Democratic-Republicans led by Thomas Jefferson became the dominate party and the Federalist gave way to the National-Republicans and then to the Anti-Masons, the Whigs, and finally to the Republicans of today.
During all the years of political change, the nation has always moved to a two-party system. There have been four occasions in the last 100 years that a third party has gotten electoral votes in the election for the Presidency. Of these four only Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican running as an alternative to the Republican nominee Taft, was able to garner a second place finish.
One reason the two-party system works in our form of government is that our parties encompass many factions. The Republican Party is considered a Conservative party and includes the Pro-Life group, the religious evangelicals, the anti-tax crowd, the gun owners rights groups, the limited government group, and people who believe in capitalism. The Democratic Party is considered a Liberal party and factions like the Pro-Choice group, Environmentalist, Gun Control crowd, the Pro-activist government crowd, and the Unions seem to gravitate to it.
Having these Parties so diametrically opposed to each other gives the public a choice and the parties a responsibility to make decisions to balance the wants of the inner factions and also adjusting the message to help attract persons that are not affiliated with either of the parties. In this way the need for more then two parties is not there. There are some groups that do not believe in the compromise aspect of two-party system and have created other smaller parties, but these groups do not gain national power, although they have won regional races. The Green Party, the Libertarian Party, and the Reform Party are all parties that have attempted to gain national office, but can only garner a minimal support from its most loyal members. The way they can gain power is open them selves to other factions and have one of the two big dogs stop reaching out to others. This is possible, but not likely.
*All election statistics were taken from http://www.infoplease.com/
Showing posts with label Electoral Process. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Electoral Process. Show all posts
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Electoral Folly
I read this article in the Sun-Times and had to write a Letter to the editor here in Peoria.
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/editorials/chicagosuntimes.php
Dear Editor,
It has come to my attention that the Illinois assembly has placed on the Governor’s desk a plan to give all 21 of the states electorals to the “National” popular vote winner. They say they are doing this to “…give voters equal influence and keep the candidates from ignoring some states…” I am wondering why giving Electorals to the “National” winner would benefit voters more than a winner-takes-all per state. Is one vote of 300 million better than one vote of 12 million?
Let us look at it this way. Due to some Gerrymandering, we here in 18th District, on the most part, vote for Republicans. We elected Ray LaHood time and time again. Aaron Shock is unopposed to take his place. And overall we normally vote for the Republican nominee for President. But our Electoral for this District is dictated by the State vote total. Does this give the voters here any better influence and keep the state from ignoring our districts needs? NO, as a matter of fact this gives “ALL” the power to the Chicago area. Giving the power to the “National” winner will do the same thing but magnified. Large cities will own the White House. People in large cities have difference priorities then people in middle sized cities and especially farmers. Do you really think that a commoner from downtown Chicago really cares about opening grain markets to India?
If people want to give greater influence to each voter, they will change the winner-take-all of the state’s Electorals to, each district decides who the Electoral votes for. The two Senator Electorals would still be decided by the State’s vote totals. This way you are one of 670,000 (375,000 likeminded voters) that decides your districts choice for President instead of one of 12 million (7 million voters focused on needs of a large city) deciding 21 Electorals for the whole state.
We all need to send Gov. Blagojevich a letter in Springfield, err, CHICAGO to tell him that we need representation in downstate in Presidential Election and we need to scrap this nonsense of “National” winner and change the winner-take-all system to Congressional District Electorals.
Andrew Simmons
Princeville, IL
There are many more reasons that we need to have the Electorals follow the winner of the district vote. One is the limiting the affect of voter fraud and another is giving each voter and equal say in the election of the President.
If you notice who is wanting this plan are states that have large urban city areas. These areas are the ones that benefit most from this plan. I am a firm believer in "States Rights" and I have no problem if New York or New Jersey want to disenfranchises it's rural voters, but for Illinois, I will fight tooth and nail to end this stupidity.
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/editorials/chicagosuntimes.php
Dear Editor,
It has come to my attention that the Illinois assembly has placed on the Governor’s desk a plan to give all 21 of the states electorals to the “National” popular vote winner. They say they are doing this to “…give voters equal influence and keep the candidates from ignoring some states…” I am wondering why giving Electorals to the “National” winner would benefit voters more than a winner-takes-all per state. Is one vote of 300 million better than one vote of 12 million?
Let us look at it this way. Due to some Gerrymandering, we here in 18th District, on the most part, vote for Republicans. We elected Ray LaHood time and time again. Aaron Shock is unopposed to take his place. And overall we normally vote for the Republican nominee for President. But our Electoral for this District is dictated by the State vote total. Does this give the voters here any better influence and keep the state from ignoring our districts needs? NO, as a matter of fact this gives “ALL” the power to the Chicago area. Giving the power to the “National” winner will do the same thing but magnified. Large cities will own the White House. People in large cities have difference priorities then people in middle sized cities and especially farmers. Do you really think that a commoner from downtown Chicago really cares about opening grain markets to India?
If people want to give greater influence to each voter, they will change the winner-take-all of the state’s Electorals to, each district decides who the Electoral votes for. The two Senator Electorals would still be decided by the State’s vote totals. This way you are one of 670,000 (375,000 likeminded voters) that decides your districts choice for President instead of one of 12 million (7 million voters focused on needs of a large city) deciding 21 Electorals for the whole state.
We all need to send Gov. Blagojevich a letter in Springfield, err, CHICAGO to tell him that we need representation in downstate in Presidential Election and we need to scrap this nonsense of “National” winner and change the winner-take-all system to Congressional District Electorals.
Andrew Simmons
Princeville, IL
There are many more reasons that we need to have the Electorals follow the winner of the district vote. One is the limiting the affect of voter fraud and another is giving each voter and equal say in the election of the President.
If you notice who is wanting this plan are states that have large urban city areas. These areas are the ones that benefit most from this plan. I am a firm believer in "States Rights" and I have no problem if New York or New Jersey want to disenfranchises it's rural voters, but for Illinois, I will fight tooth and nail to end this stupidity.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
The Electoral College; the Guardian of our Rights
I just read that state lawmakers have been putting together a plan to replace the Electoral College with a mandate that all the electorals would be decided by the national popular vote. This scares me. Of all the things that have been done to the Constitution in the last fifty years this would be the worst.
Pure democracy is as bad a form of government as a dictatorship. That is why our founding fathers created a republic and not a democracy. A "majority rules" democracy creates an environment of having two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for diner. It never turns out good for the sheep. Not only are these reasons scary but there many more reasons to be scared of this idea.
The idea of the Electoral College is to weigh the voice of the majority with the rights of the minority. In a "Majority Rules" vote the large states would be the only ones heard. Candidates would be going to New York or California and by-passing the "Flyover" country because there is a greater amount of voters here to sway. What type of national leader would he be if he was elected only with the vote of large states. With the small states getting the minimum of three electorals they do end up with a stronger "per vote", but that is only if used "en masse". If not they will even themselves out. This makes a national candidate
One of the other issues that the Electoral College helps is voter fraud. Since I am from Illinois I know something about voter fraud. The state motto is "Vote Early, Vote Often!" and the Voter's Bill of Rights include right to use a death certificate as a valid ID. With the Electoral College voter fraud in Illinois does not affect the National Election except in the 21 Electorals that Illinois has. As a matter of fact, if Electorals were done by Congressional District the effect of voter fraud would be limited to the district that the fraud that is done in and the two electorals that is determined by the state's popular vote. In a vote as close as the 2000 election voter fraud could have changed that 500,000 vote defecit to a 500,000 very easily. Twenty Ttousand in this city, Twenty thousand in that city. With a national election any voter fraud affects the national numbers, and since the easiest place to create fraud is in a place with many voting places close together, large cities will end up with benefit from the voter fraud. When you hear about the percincts in some large cities that ended up with nearly 90-95% of the registered voters voting and they are almost all for the same candidate you have to wonder. And the media says that people in the inner cities are disenfranchised.
Ah, the media. With a National Election the media grows to the power of Gods in elections. Media has the power to make or break a candidate. It doesn't matter how great your message is if the Media does not cover you no one will know your name. Do you think candidates in smaller area will get any attention if it is up to national media? Where do media outlets get people to interview? Places where there are lots of people; cities and large cities at that. Again, a "Majority Rules" election is the scariest thing I can think of.
Do voters in large cities have the same priorities as a person from say, Iowa? How about Tennessee?, New Mexico?, Alaska? No, a person in the cities is not going to worry how a social welfare program is going to work in farm country. They are not going to worry about illegal immigration in New Mexico or Gun Rights in Tennesee. The the majority thinks that agricultral issues are not that important and that Global Warming would be helped if all the farmland in Iowa is turned into forests. Guns are bad and no one should own one, Majority Rules!
In each of the points I noticed that a "Majority Rules" style always benefits the large urban areas. I have also noticed that these large urban
Pure democracy is as bad a form of government as a dictatorship. That is why our founding fathers created a republic and not a democracy. A "majority rules" democracy creates an environment of having two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for diner. It never turns out good for the sheep. Not only are these reasons scary but there many more reasons to be scared of this idea.
The idea of the Electoral College is to weigh the voice of the majority with the rights of the minority. In a "Majority Rules" vote the large states would be the only ones heard. Candidates would be going to New York or California and by-passing the "Flyover" country because there is a greater amount of voters here to sway. What type of national leader would he be if he was elected only with the vote of large states. With the small states getting the minimum of three electorals they do end up with a stronger "per vote", but that is only if used "en masse". If not they will even themselves out. This makes a national candidate
One of the other issues that the Electoral College helps is voter fraud. Since I am from Illinois I know something about voter fraud. The state motto is "Vote Early, Vote Often!" and the Voter's Bill of Rights include right to use a death certificate as a valid ID. With the Electoral College voter fraud in Illinois does not affect the National Election except in the 21 Electorals that Illinois has. As a matter of fact, if Electorals were done by Congressional District the effect of voter fraud would be limited to the district that the fraud that is done in and the two electorals that is determined by the state's popular vote. In a vote as close as the 2000 election voter fraud could have changed that 500,000 vote defecit to a 500,000 very easily. Twenty Ttousand in this city, Twenty thousand in that city. With a national election any voter fraud affects the national numbers, and since the easiest place to create fraud is in a place with many voting places close together, large cities will end up with benefit from the voter fraud. When you hear about the percincts in some large cities that ended up with nearly 90-95% of the registered voters voting and they are almost all for the same candidate you have to wonder. And the media says that people in the inner cities are disenfranchised.
Ah, the media. With a National Election the media grows to the power of Gods in elections. Media has the power to make or break a candidate. It doesn't matter how great your message is if the Media does not cover you no one will know your name. Do you think candidates in smaller area will get any attention if it is up to national media? Where do media outlets get people to interview? Places where there are lots of people; cities and large cities at that. Again, a "Majority Rules" election is the scariest thing I can think of.
Do voters in large cities have the same priorities as a person from say, Iowa? How about Tennessee?, New Mexico?, Alaska? No, a person in the cities is not going to worry how a social welfare program is going to work in farm country. They are not going to worry about illegal immigration in New Mexico or Gun Rights in Tennesee. The the majority thinks that agricultral issues are not that important and that Global Warming would be helped if all the farmland in Iowa is turned into forests. Guns are bad and no one should own one, Majority Rules!
In each of the points I noticed that a "Majority Rules" style always benefits the large urban areas. I have also noticed that these large urban
Saturday, December 22, 2007
This is an Electoral Election not a National Election
I found a great webpage for looking at this coming election. http://www.270towin.com/ is a website that just looks at the electoral numbers for the upcoming election. First thing you will see is Map of the US and each states' electorals. You can change the map between undecided, Republican and Democratic states. It also allows Maine and Nebraska's districts to vote differently. You know, 2 districts go Democratic and one district and the total state vote goes Republican. It lets you see what it will take for the Republicans to win in next November.
I believe that the country is still split into the same areas as in 2004 and 2000. http://www.270towin.com/ set you up with the states that were 5% difference in vote set to the victor and leaves all the others undecided.
It is amazing at how strong President Bush was in most states he won. Of the 286 Electorals that he won by in 2004, 246 Electorals were won by more then 5% and 183 were won by 10%. Compared to 183 and 91 of the Democrats. That is also great news that 106 Electorals were decided by less then 5% of that states vote. Min., Wis., Mich., Iowa, Oh., and Pa. are all inplay. I will say in 2006 Michigan elected more Republican Representatives then Democratic and a very close race in 2004, Michigan has a very good chance to move to the Republican side. And who surging in Michigan? Florida should be a Republican state in 2008 with over 5% victory in 2004. And with 27 Electorals it will really be an important Republican state to win. Who is Surging in FL? And who is leading in Rammussen's head to head Poll against all the Democratic Candidates?
I believe that the country is still split into the same areas as in 2004 and 2000. http://www.270towin.com/ set you up with the states that were 5% difference in vote set to the victor and leaves all the others undecided.
It is amazing at how strong President Bush was in most states he won. Of the 286 Electorals that he won by in 2004, 246 Electorals were won by more then 5% and 183 were won by 10%. Compared to 183 and 91 of the Democrats. That is also great news that 106 Electorals were decided by less then 5% of that states vote. Min., Wis., Mich., Iowa, Oh., and Pa. are all inplay. I will say in 2006 Michigan elected more Republican Representatives then Democratic and a very close race in 2004, Michigan has a very good chance to move to the Republican side. And who surging in Michigan? Florida should be a Republican state in 2008 with over 5% victory in 2004. And with 27 Electorals it will really be an important Republican state to win. Who is Surging in FL? And who is leading in Rammussen's head to head Poll against all the Democratic Candidates?
All this means is that with the right candidate the Republicans can win in 2008. That is even if Hillary is not the candidate. (I am so tempted to change my party so I can vote for Hillary in my Primary.) She is the greatest thing to happen to the Republican Party since Ronald Reagan. OK, not that great, but it would be a great thing to have her as the Democratic Nominee.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)