[Vision2020] Electoral College Kills My Vote In Idaho

Mon, 5 Jan 2004 03:00:22 EST

--part1_82.28eb970.2d2a7396_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Paul et. al.

We have all heard the argument that the electoral college helps give the 
lower population states more influence over the election of the president as a 
defense of the electoral college system.  However, there already is an equalizing 
factor, offered to compensate for the small states power in the Federal 
government, in the US Senate: every state has the same number of senators.  

How is the good derived from sometimes giving states with small populations 
more power per capita over the election of a president, worth the damage done 
to the faith voters may have in our democratic system, by awarding the 
presidency to someone who did not receive a majority of the votes of the nation? 

Consider that Florida is NOT among the states with the smallest populations, 
yet it's electoral votes negated the votes of about half a million Americans 
who voted for Gore over Bush in 2000.  What about the rights of these voters, 
who next time may consider that voting is not worth the bother, when in a close 
election the state electors in some state 3000 miles away can negate the 
intent of the whole nation?  

Here in Idaho the electoral college negates my next vote for the presidency 
as having any meaning, because Idaho will go for Bush with 99.999% certainty, 
and Shrub is not on my short list.  Isn't this consequence, when voters who 
know the political makeup of their state, and intend to vote against the well 
known majority, realize that there is no point in voting for a presidential 
candidate that will not receive their state's electoral votes, a discouragement 
from participating, even when in a national election by popular or electoral 
college vote they may intend to vote for the eventual winner?

There have been only a few times in our history that the electoral college 
results differed from the popular national vote for the presidency.  Why 
undermine the motivation to vote for the presidency, such as this motivation is in 
our cynical political process with millions who don't vote, with a system that 
possibly negates the popular will of the nation, and rarely differs from the 
popular vote anyway?

Florida in 2000 was ready to send via the will of the Republican controlled 
legislature its own set of Republican electors if the recount declared Gore the 
winner.  Two sets of electors would then have been presented as representing 
Florida.  The potential for this sort of politically biased shenanigans that 
the electoral college makes possible is another reason to offer direct popular 
vote for the president.

One big potential downside is that if the national vote is very close, a 
recount may be required, demanding a costly and messy national effort similar to 
what happened in Florida in 2000.  Maybe then the electoral college could be 
activated as a backup to decide an election that is too close to call in 
practical terms by a national popular vote.  Or we could show the world that we mean 
business about being "the world's greatest democracy" by investing in a 
standardized, fair, well regulated and monitored national election for the 
presidency, an election that if required offered the technical potential to do a 
national recount.  

This is all academic, without a sea change in our system: to do away with the 
electoral college is almost a political impossibility.  And not enough people 
really care one way or the other.

Ted

--part1_82.28eb970.2d2a7396_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<HTML>
 Paul et. al.
 
 We have all heard the argument that the electoral college helps give the=
 lower population states more influence over the election of the president a=
s a defense of the electoral college system. &nbsp;However, there already is=
 an equalizing factor, offered to compensate for the small states power in t=
he Federal government, in the US Senate: every state has the same number of=20=
senators. &nbsp;
 
 How is the good derived from sometimes giving states with small populati=
ons more power per capita over the election of a president, worth the damage=
 done to the faith voters may have in our democratic system, by awarding the=
 presidency to someone who did not receive a majority of the votes of the na=
tion?=20
 
 Consider that Florida is NOT among the states with the smallest populati=
ons, yet it's electoral votes negated the votes of about half a million Amer=
icans who voted for Gore over Bush in 2000. &nbsp;What about the rights of t=
hese voters, who next time may consider that voting is not worth the bother,=
 when in a close election the state electors in some state 3000 miles away c=
an negate the intent of the whole nation? &nbsp;
 
 Here in Idaho the electoral college negates my next vote for the preside=
ncy as having any meaning, because Idaho will go for Bush with 99.999% certa=
inty, and Shrub is not on my short list. &nbsp;Isn't this consequence, when=20=
voters who know the political makeup of their state, and intend to vote agai=
nst the well known majority, realize that there is no point in voting for a=20=
presidential candidate that will not receive their state's electoral votes,=20=
a discouragement from participating, even when in a national election by pop=
ular or electoral college vote they may intend to vote for the eventual winn=
er?
 
 There have been only a few times in our history that the electoral colle=
ge results differed from the popular national vote for the presidency. &nbsp=
;Why undermine the motivation to vote for the presidency, such as this motiv=
ation is in our cynical political process with millions who don't vote, with=
 a system that possibly negates the popular will of the nation, and rarely d=
iffers from the popular vote anyway?
 
 Florida in 2000 was ready to send via the will of the Republican control=
led legislature its own set of Republican electors if the recount declared G=
ore the winner. &nbsp;Two sets of electors would then have been presented as=
 representing Florida. &nbsp;The potential for this sort of politically bias=
ed shenanigans that the electoral college makes possible is another reason t=
o offer direct popular vote for the president.
 
 One big potential downside is that if the national vote is very close, a=
 recount may be required, demanding a costly and messy national effort simil=
ar to what happened in Florida in 2000. &nbsp;Maybe then the electoral colle=
ge could be activated as a backup to decide an election that is too close to=
 call in practical terms by a national popular vote. &nbsp;Or we could show=20=
the world that we mean business about being "the world's greatest democracy"=
 by investing in a standardized, fair, well regulated and monitored national=
 election for the presidency, an election that if required offered the techn=
ical potential to do a national recount. &nbsp;
 
 This is all academic, without a sea change in our system: to do away wit=
h the electoral college is almost a political impossibility. &nbsp;And not e=
nough people really care one way or the other.
 
 Ted</HTML>

--part1_82.28eb970.2d2a7396_boundary--