Adam Howitt's Blog

Nov 03
2004

Disenchanted Non-eligible voter

At : 3:21 PM | Link | American History | Comments (6) | Send | 707 Views |

Like the airlines say - "we recognize you have a choice when flying and thank you for flying Delta"...

That said I can still complain about the fact the my airline delayed the flight or I don't like their service or the website.

I'm probably the most disenchanted non-eligible voter in America this morning. It's not that Bush won. It is the fact that I disagree with the electoral process. I alluded to this fact earlier this morning when I presented an alternate method for assigning Electoral College votes.

Roughly speaking I'm proposing federally controlled elections and removing the electoral college system.

Electing the leader of the government in my mind is a federal issue and should be co-ordinated at a federal level with no state interference. If a state doesn't like the election procedure, secede! Dual federalism just seems unconstitutional when applied to the right to vote. Democracy should ensure that every vote counts.

Dual federalism has resulted in each state choosing it's own way to run elections instead of the government declaring that the elections should be performed in a specific way and the count should be returned by a specific time.

Not to mention the Electoral College system. Yesterday 55 EC votes were placed for Kerry despite the fact that he won only 54% of the vote. Surely the 55 EC votes should have split 29/26 instead. Yet last night, Colorado voters elected not to move to this system. Why? I would love to hear a well reasoned argument besides a 200 year old document outlining this supreme logic which arbitrarily rounds up from 54 out of 100 voters to give 100% backing to one candidate. We should be thankful the same math doesn't apply to our taxes or we'd all be rounding our annual contributions up to the nearest 10,000 dollars.

It wouldn't be right to finish without an honorable mention to Samuel J. Tilden who, despite beating Rutherford B. Hayes by a quarter of a million votes on the popular vote, was not elected as President in 1876. What is more interesting is that he lost on the electoral votes by a single vote 185 to 184. Why is this interesting? Rutherford B. Hayes received the Colorado electoral vote despite the fact that no-one voted there. At least Grover Cleveland was elected in the subsequent election after he won the popular vote by about 90,000 votes but lost on Electoral College votes by a margin of 233 to 168, hence electing Benjamin Harrison.

Finally we have the last election when Bush was elected over Gore despite losing the popular vote by 500,000 votes - the population of DC, Wyoming or Vermont. Hmm.

I'd like to see electoral reform and see the nation move to federally controlled elections where the popular vote is the only factor.

My last is how can a nation remain so divided yet continue to be ruled by someone so wrong for me and the rest of the upper midwest/ north east / north west? I thought the idea behind dual federalism was to ensure that non of the states with their local issues are imposed upon unfairly.

Comments (Comment Moderation is enabled. Your comment will not appear until approved.)
[Add Comment] [Subscribe to Comments]
  1. I heard an interesting solution to the election process: tie all Federal elections in to the tax system. You pay tax, you vote. You don't pay, you don't vote. Everyone gets a bar code with their tax return, which gives them one vote.

    Posted By Tom : Posted At 11/3/04 4:24 PM
  2. I couldn't agree more. There needs to be a change. While riding the train home last night (before the returns even started), I overheard a group of 20-somethingish people talking about voting. One girl kept proclaiming how she thinks it's so stupid to vote cause it doesn't really matter anyway - "it's not like my vote is going to make a difference". I couldn't help thinking she was right (even if it was for a second). That attitude is a direct result of the system. I live in IL (Chicago to be exact) and the chances of G-Dub getting our EC votes were about as good as a snowball's chance in hell. So really, that girl was right - her one single vote was going to make no difference at all. If the system were changed to a popular vote, that would all change.

    Posted By Jeff Kenny : Posted At 11/3/04 10:26 PM
  3. The reason the election process is done at the state level is close to the same reason why we have both the house and the senate. The first thing you must remember is that we are not a democracy we are a Republic, a republic of states to be more exact. Our for fathers were smart enough to know that it is the states that give power to the federal govt, not the other way around, and that has been lost. Now back to the question at hand, if we went to just a popular vote small states would be overlooked and the candidates would only visit the large cities and in the biggest states. Yes I can hear you all ready saying that is what they do now, but not exactly. You have to look at poles, the candidates have a small time to really talk to everyone and the sitting president even less (remember he has a day job) so they only visit states that are ‘swing states.’ The reason why states are all or nothing is also rather simple. You talk about a majority vote; this is done at the state level and makes once again all states on the same balance as they are in the house and senate. So each state is important with the states with the largest population worth more.

    But the most important fact is no in America is guaranteed the right to vote, yes that is right it is not in the constitution that you are allowed to vote. The states let you vote in elections to see who will be selected to represent you in the Electoral College. Then to top it off they are not bound to vote any way, they could vote for the other and have from time to time. The only thing the constitution says on the subject of voting is that if people are allowed to vote you can not stop them from voting based off color of skin or sex or religion or anything else, unless the state law has a rule. (I.e. only citizens of the state can vote if the register and live within the area of voting, or criminals.)

    Now let’s look at the facts, we are the longest sitting government in modern history, with the ability to change complete rule every 4 years with not one drop of blood spilled or one shot fired. That you are allowed to vote and as you can see from the past two elections your vote does matter (i.e. Ohio in 2004 and Florida in 2000.)

    Now on the other side I to be not to 100% happy with a winner take all system, but that is why it was set up.

    Posted By Darrin : Posted At 11/4/04 8:33 AM
  4. The argument that the voice of the little states wouldn't be heard only applies with the maintenance of the electoral college system. Over half the population - 149m people - live in just 9 states. Of those nine states Bush won 76 ec votes and Kerry 145. If the candidates focussed their efforts on these states you have addressed over half the population. It makes sense to visit states where you can make a difference on the swing if it is all or nothing but the popular vote eliminates that.

    A popular vote means every voice counts towards the whole and the voters are empowered. Just because the candidate didn't visit your town doesn't mean his policies are no longer valid. Surely what matters is whether a candidate supports your values and will act in your best interests.

    Posted By Adam Howitt : Posted At 11/4/04 11:09 AM
  5. But you are forgetting that we are not a democracy we are a Republic, a republic of states. You still get to vote for the person you feel will best represent you. Just as a side note the last president to win both the popular vote and the electoral was George H. Bush. Clinton never won the popular vote, so under you idea George H and Dole would have beaten Clinton. So is it the system that you do not like or the result. Before you answer this remember George W. won both the popular and the electoral vote.

    Posted By Darrin : Posted At 11/4/04 12:15 PM
  6. I disagree. 2000 Bush loses popular vote to Gore but wins electoral college - first time since 1888 when Cleveland lost to Harrison.

    1996 Clinton beats Dole 47,402,357 to 39,198,755 votes and wins electoral college 379 to 159.

    1992 Clinton beats George H. Bush 44,909,889 to 39,104,545 with an honorable mention to H. Ross Perot with 19,742,267 votes.

    So under the popular vote rules, neither George H. or Dole would have beat Clinton.

    To your mention that GW won both this time round, that was never in dispute. To my point that you vote for a candidate who represents your best interests, it is clear that there is a discrepancy between the majority of the populous states and the rest. The fundamental issue here is that what is right for someone living in a small town in the middle of america clearly isn't what the people of LA, Chicago and New York need.

    Posted By Adam Howitt : Posted At 11/4/04 4:18 PM
[Add Comment]