Monday, November 01, 2004
Here We Go Again
Florida’s voting system, apparently, is having the same problems they had in the last Presidential election. With this race being so close, both sides are gearing up for court battles to contest the election, if they should lose.
I’ve read in multiple places people basically saying that you would think, after what happened four years ago, they would have fixed the system.
I’m not surprised the system hasn’t been fixed. Matter of a fact, I would have been greatly surprised if the system had been fixed.
You have to keep in mind the goal of the two parties. The obvious answer to that question is that the goal of the two parties is to win elections. That’s not entirely true. The goal of each party is to have control of the government. You can ascribe whatever motive, positive or negative, that you want to that goal, but that is the goal, nevertheless.
Normally, to control the government, you have to win elections. Well, the last presidential election proved that you don’t, necessarily, have to win the election to control the office in question. All you have to do is keep the election close, and then win the court battle that follows.
The parties don’t want the problem solved because that takes away a tool that they have to attain their goal.
Just watch. Unless one side or the other comes up with a clear advantage in the electoral college, which would surprise everyone, the side that is initially declared the loser is going to contest the election results in the courts. At that point, what anyone voted anywhere does not really matter. The Supreme Court will, eventually, decide who the next president is. Whoever presents the best case in court, will then be the winner.
Which brings up another thought. Most people do not really understand the system, anyway. You have to realize that, in reality, you and I do not vote for or elect the President. The system doesn’t work that way. And that is a good thing, especially in a close election.
The states, not the people as a whole, elect the President. Each state receives the number of votes in the Electoral College that corresponds to the number of members of Congress that they have. (There are 100 members of the Senate. Each state, no matter what you population, gets 2. There are 435 members of the House of Representatives (that number is the maximum allowed by the Constitution). Those 435 seats are divided up among the respective states according to population. Every state, no matter how small the population has to receive one.) So, every state has a minimum of 3 votes in the Electoral College. Your vote goes to decide how all of the votes from your respective state will be cast. It’s all or nothing for your state. Meaning that, your vote goes toward deciding how, at a minimum, how 3 votes in the Electoral College will be cast.
Now, how is this better than a direct popular vote?
This election is a perfect example of why that is the case. It’s going to be close, according to all of the polls. If it was a direct popular vote, then all a candidate would have to do is concentrate on the major population centers and ignore the rest of the country. All a candidate would have to do is win the two coasts, and forget the rest of the country. There is enough population on the coasts that the election could be won that way, easily. But, that’s not the way the system works.
The last time I saw an estimate of the electoral votes that each candidate had locked up, there was a difference of 7 votes. At that point, a candidate doesn’t have to win a major state, in terms of population. All they have to do to carry it by two votes is win Alaska, Wyoming, and Washington DC, (each one of those have 3 electoral votes) and they have a lead of 2 votes.
What does that mean? It means a Presidential candidate ignores a state at his peril. Ignoring what is important to the bulk of voters in a given state, no matter how small, could, theoretically, cost him the election. That theoretical case becomes more real the closer the election is, overall. If it was just a popular vote, then entire blocks of states could easily be ignored by candidates.
The Electoral College was designed so that the country as a whole, and not just a few of the states elect the President. That was the Founding Fathers concept. Part of their system of “checks and balances�. Balancing the power of states with a large population with the other states. You have to keep in mind that we are not a democracy, we are a republic. Those are two very different things.
I’ve read in multiple places people basically saying that you would think, after what happened four years ago, they would have fixed the system.
I’m not surprised the system hasn’t been fixed. Matter of a fact, I would have been greatly surprised if the system had been fixed.
You have to keep in mind the goal of the two parties. The obvious answer to that question is that the goal of the two parties is to win elections. That’s not entirely true. The goal of each party is to have control of the government. You can ascribe whatever motive, positive or negative, that you want to that goal, but that is the goal, nevertheless.
Normally, to control the government, you have to win elections. Well, the last presidential election proved that you don’t, necessarily, have to win the election to control the office in question. All you have to do is keep the election close, and then win the court battle that follows.
The parties don’t want the problem solved because that takes away a tool that they have to attain their goal.
Just watch. Unless one side or the other comes up with a clear advantage in the electoral college, which would surprise everyone, the side that is initially declared the loser is going to contest the election results in the courts. At that point, what anyone voted anywhere does not really matter. The Supreme Court will, eventually, decide who the next president is. Whoever presents the best case in court, will then be the winner.
Which brings up another thought. Most people do not really understand the system, anyway. You have to realize that, in reality, you and I do not vote for or elect the President. The system doesn’t work that way. And that is a good thing, especially in a close election.
The states, not the people as a whole, elect the President. Each state receives the number of votes in the Electoral College that corresponds to the number of members of Congress that they have. (There are 100 members of the Senate. Each state, no matter what you population, gets 2. There are 435 members of the House of Representatives (that number is the maximum allowed by the Constitution). Those 435 seats are divided up among the respective states according to population. Every state, no matter how small the population has to receive one.) So, every state has a minimum of 3 votes in the Electoral College. Your vote goes to decide how all of the votes from your respective state will be cast. It’s all or nothing for your state. Meaning that, your vote goes toward deciding how, at a minimum, how 3 votes in the Electoral College will be cast.
Now, how is this better than a direct popular vote?
This election is a perfect example of why that is the case. It’s going to be close, according to all of the polls. If it was a direct popular vote, then all a candidate would have to do is concentrate on the major population centers and ignore the rest of the country. All a candidate would have to do is win the two coasts, and forget the rest of the country. There is enough population on the coasts that the election could be won that way, easily. But, that’s not the way the system works.
The last time I saw an estimate of the electoral votes that each candidate had locked up, there was a difference of 7 votes. At that point, a candidate doesn’t have to win a major state, in terms of population. All they have to do to carry it by two votes is win Alaska, Wyoming, and Washington DC, (each one of those have 3 electoral votes) and they have a lead of 2 votes.
What does that mean? It means a Presidential candidate ignores a state at his peril. Ignoring what is important to the bulk of voters in a given state, no matter how small, could, theoretically, cost him the election. That theoretical case becomes more real the closer the election is, overall. If it was just a popular vote, then entire blocks of states could easily be ignored by candidates.
The Electoral College was designed so that the country as a whole, and not just a few of the states elect the President. That was the Founding Fathers concept. Part of their system of “checks and balances�. Balancing the power of states with a large population with the other states. You have to keep in mind that we are not a democracy, we are a republic. Those are two very different things.
