Although the general US presidential election is some months away - lucky! since the Republicans have to spend a lot of time finding a quality candidate and the Democrats have to spend all their time perseverating on their casual sure-pick - I've been pondering again the Electoral College system.
To be clear, I totally understand why the authors of our Constitution framed the electoral process for President in this fashion. It made sense. The notion of a free-for-all pure election based on individual votes must have sounded crazy and dangerous. It was huge and unwieldy, a mob mentality could rally around a candidate and there would be no dividing line - no barrier - between a massively popular although untenable President being elected by "the masses" without a structure in place to make sure responsible leadership and government was maintained for the country.
The smaller and larger states, no doubt, also had their reservations about a free election. The larger states wished to maintain their proportionately larger share in the electoral process. The smaller states, with a smaller population, didn't want to have their voice proportionately diminished.
Now, my difficulty with the process. I have lived in both "Blue" and "Red" states (terms, by the way, I do not like, since they are more restrictive of free thought and expression by their inhabitants - as if a conservative view in New England is shunned, as is a more liberal view in the deep South). Likewise, I feel that every person in the electorate - every person who votes, that is, since many do not exercise their right to vote, sadly - has a viewpoint that should be respected and valued. Not just valued as an opinion or intellectually, but valued by the electoral process.
Our democracy thrives on the principle of majority rule. Whether in state or federal legislatures, the majority (of some proportion) holds sway in making decisions. This should occur both in terms of legislation as well as election of legislators. I feel that this should apply to our chief executive as well.
Obviously, majority does rule for election of the President, as the person winning the most Electoral College votes wins the election. But I feel that the polarized political landscape of our "Blue" and "Red" states drastically diminishes the individual's role in the electoral process - again, every viewpoint and vote should be valued.
If I vote "Red" in a Blue state, or vice versa, I feel - I think we all would feel - that our vote is .... to use a harsh word ..... useless! Why spend my time voting for McCain in Connecticut or Obama in Mississippi?! Setting aside the potential that a person winning the popular vote but losing the electoral college would lose the election (hello, Mr. Gore), my chief objection to this system is the devaluation of each voter's say in the process of electing our highest government official.
Here are some linkes ot articles about the US Electoral College:
To be clear, I totally understand why the authors of our Constitution framed the electoral process for President in this fashion. It made sense. The notion of a free-for-all pure election based on individual votes must have sounded crazy and dangerous. It was huge and unwieldy, a mob mentality could rally around a candidate and there would be no dividing line - no barrier - between a massively popular although untenable President being elected by "the masses" without a structure in place to make sure responsible leadership and government was maintained for the country.
The smaller and larger states, no doubt, also had their reservations about a free election. The larger states wished to maintain their proportionately larger share in the electoral process. The smaller states, with a smaller population, didn't want to have their voice proportionately diminished.
Now, my difficulty with the process. I have lived in both "Blue" and "Red" states (terms, by the way, I do not like, since they are more restrictive of free thought and expression by their inhabitants - as if a conservative view in New England is shunned, as is a more liberal view in the deep South). Likewise, I feel that every person in the electorate - every person who votes, that is, since many do not exercise their right to vote, sadly - has a viewpoint that should be respected and valued. Not just valued as an opinion or intellectually, but valued by the electoral process.
Our democracy thrives on the principle of majority rule. Whether in state or federal legislatures, the majority (of some proportion) holds sway in making decisions. This should occur both in terms of legislation as well as election of legislators. I feel that this should apply to our chief executive as well.
Obviously, majority does rule for election of the President, as the person winning the most Electoral College votes wins the election. But I feel that the polarized political landscape of our "Blue" and "Red" states drastically diminishes the individual's role in the electoral process - again, every viewpoint and vote should be valued.
If I vote "Red" in a Blue state, or vice versa, I feel - I think we all would feel - that our vote is .... to use a harsh word ..... useless! Why spend my time voting for McCain in Connecticut or Obama in Mississippi?! Setting aside the potential that a person winning the popular vote but losing the electoral college would lose the election (hello, Mr. Gore), my chief objection to this system is the devaluation of each voter's say in the process of electing our highest government official.
Here are some linkes ot articles about the US Electoral College: