It seems there is a quiet movement afoot in each state legislature, The National Popular Vote plan, to determine whether that particular state wants to sign on to having the presidential elections in out country determined by the outcome of the popular vote.
This legislation doesn't suggest abolishing the Electoral College, but instead, awarding each state's electoral votes to the nation's overall popular winner. If there were a tie in the popular vote, then the present system of allocating the electoral votes of each state would be used to determine the winner.
Much of the reasoning behind this move is to make each state's voters as valuable as the next, rather than candidates courting votes with the higher number of electorial votes. The article link to this post states that in the 2004 presidential election, neither of the candidates visited Illinois, a state with nearly 13 million people, at all during their campaign. Imagine then, how little attention the states with smaller populations received.
As a long time advocate of eliminating the Electoral College altogether, I am pleased with this first step away from that system being the determining factor in how our president is chosen. Many people are adverse from eliminating it altogether, since it has been part of our political heritage from our country's inception.
Governor Schwarzenegger opposes the National Popular Vote plan on the basis that in changing away from the Electoral College and its votes, we would be doing away with states' rights and uniqueness. I question that way of thinking; I fail to see how a popular vote does any such thing.
The Electoral College was not created to embrace states' rights--it had nothing to do with them. It was created because in that time period of our nation, there was no mass media as there are today. Candidates didn't reach the masses of people as they can today. The original Electoral College was established with educated and world-wise men who could, if they chose, uphold the popular vote of the state. However, then--as now-- those electors don't HAVE to vote as their state did, if for some reason they feel the populace didn't understand an issue, were not representing the state or nation's greater good--really, for any reason whatsoever.
I respect the vision of our founding fathers, but I believe if they were here today, with all the advances in communication, they would be the first to agree that the popular vote is the best and fairest way to choose our national leader.
YO,
ReplyDeleteSAME OLD ,SAME OLD...ELECT A NEW PREZ..6 MONTHS DOWN THE ROAD CONGRESS AND THE SENATE WILL SAY HE'S A BUM, CROOK, HE SHOULD BE IMPEACHED,YOU ALL KNOW THE GAME...LET THE MILITARY RUN THE COUNTRY... NO CRIME,NO POVERTY, MANDATORY MILITARY SERVICE, HANG 'EM ALL! AS FAR AS I'M CONCERENED IF THE COUNTRY ELECTS THIS CREEP OBAMA,HE'LL KISS EVERYONE ASS AND SELL THIS COUNTRY OUT,WE'VE BECOME WEAKER,WITH HIM IN OFFICE WE'LL MEET OUR END!!!
It would be refreshing if our elected officials did much less posturing and were less concerned about their individual careers and more concerned with the nation as a whole.
ReplyDeleteThank you for stopping by and leaving your comment. It's easy to see that you have a deep commitment to our country.
As for the military running the country--that would be the end of our nation as we know it, wouldn't it? People originally came to America to escape tyranny and to establish a government of the people by the people.
I believe with all my heart that if each of us as citizens become more involved and hold our elected officials to task, our nation could move closer to the ideals of its creators.
Per Magnetcoin:
ReplyDeleteThat's always been a thing that people want/don't want...old vs. new. To do away with it might be nice, as a matter of fact a presidential canadite once got more popular votes then electoral and lost because of it.
Then it was suggested also that the electoral be done away with, and nothing happened. Most are happy with the electoral only because it's an "instiutution" that people don't want to give up.