My
wife gave up voting in the General Election in 2000, and it's all my fault. I
had to go and tell her about the Electoral College, and after verifying the
truth of what I told her (either as a consequence of our belonging to two
different political ideologies, or my past preponderance for passionate and
sometimes truth-stretching rhetoric) she came to the conclusion that her measly
vote didn't count. I tried to soften the reality of the current means of
choosing our President by reminding her that a non vote was indeed a vote for
the candidate she liked least, but she pointed to Article Two of the
Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment and reminded me right back that the Electoral
College appointees decides who will be leader of the United States. She
suggested (rather vehemently, I might add) that we eliminate the Electoral
College altogether and choose our President and Vice President by popular vote.
She
effectively joined the ranks of a growing segment of society who feel the same
way. In a poll taken by the Washington Post in 2007, 78% of Democrats, 60% of
Republicans and 73% of Independents opposed the Electoral College. Even during
the Constitutional Convention of 1787, a number of members (primarily James
Madison) saw the flaw of taking the election out of the people's hands and
argued against it, but the issue of slavery at the time caused the majority of Convention
members to fear the slave-holding states would revolt. You see, Suffrage (the
abolishment of slavery) was much more popular in the well-populated North, and
a direct election by the people would take away much of the South's leverage in
blocking a candidate favorable to such an ideology. Another objection to not
having the Electoral College then was raised by the smaller states who feared
that the larger states would be able to control who would be President.
Legitimate arguments... in 1787. Since then, there have been a number of
General Elections where the Electoral College went against the popular vote and
chose the President (such as in 1824, 1876, 1888 and of course in 2000). In
essence, the Electoral College renders the popular vote irrelevant. Even though
it's happened only four times, it can easily happen again.
If
a third-party candidate sweeps the hearts and minds of the people it will be
all for naught, given the present system. For instance, I remember the furor
Ross Perot caused as an Independent candidate in the 1992 election. His
business-style approach and straight talk wooed many voters. Twice that year,
leading up to the Election, he briefly held a majority of support in nationwide
polls. In the end he received 19% of the popular vote, and many argue that the
primary reasons he didn't win the outright popular vote was because of poor
campaign staffing and because at one point he temporarily withdrew his
candidacy. Although Ron Paul did not win much of the popular vote in 2008 and
2012, he has won over a rapidly growing number of supporters with his
Libertarian views. Some have even credited him with starting the grassroots Tea
Party. The controversial Southerner George Wallace actually won 13% of the
popular vote in 1968, but his racist platform became his downfall (along with
the death of his wife Lurleen and an assassination attempt during his 1972 run
for the Presidency). In 1896 William Jenning Bryant actually won 46% of the
vote while running under the Populist Party, but was beaten by McKinley.
Theodore Roosevelt's Bull Moose Party in 1912 gave the two-party system a run
for their money. There actually has been a third party candidate elected
President: Abraham Lincoln. When he ran as a Republican, the Republican Party
was not a major presence on the political scene. Unfortunately, the Republican
Party did such a good job that it eliminated all but the Democratic Party, and
ushered in the present two-party system. Current opinion amongst pundits,
talking heads and political strategists is that a strong third-party candidate now
days only serves to take votes away from one of the two prevailing parties.
I
personally think we should amend the Electoral College instead of eliminating
it. The current two-party system is just one party away from a political
monopoly, a one-party state susceptible to despotism, a dictatorship or pure
Totalitarianism. In fact, doesn't it seem that the Democrats and Republicans
today are morphing into one big bureaucratic monster? It doesn't look good for
us, my fellow citizen. Here's an idea: The Constitution gives the individual
states power to choose their own electoral candidates. Why don't we insist (via
a Constitutional Amendment, of course) that the states delegate their
candidates based entirely on the popular vote? Ten states (with a total of 136
electoral votes - over halfway to the 270 votes needed to enact it) have
accepted and passed amendments supporting a national popular vote. Here are
those brave states: Vermont, Maryland, DC, New Jersey, Rhode Island,
Washington, California, Illinois, Massachusetts and Hawaii. There is actually a
significant movement called the National Popular Vote
which is pushing for passage of such an bill that would guarantee a majority of
the Electoral College to the Presidential candidate receiving the popular vote.
Many members of Congress support it, but given the current political
retardation and incompetence, the bill has been pushed to a back burner.
I
know a lot of folks want to just eliminate the Electoral College altogether,
but realistically, there would be greater opposition to such a proposal than if
we tweak it. The National Popular Vote bill will insure our voices be heard and
our votes count. We all agree that our choices in the current two-party system
have been between bad and worse, the devil or the deep blue sea, the fire or
the frying pan. If your vote actually counted in the Presidential election, it
may propel a strong leader from the Libertarian, Independent, Reform or Green
Party to the White House. It may give the candidate that speaks for you and
your fellow Americans a fighting chance. It would definitely be a valuable tool
in our revolution against tyranny.
No comments:
Post a Comment