Monday, March 27, 2006
College Dropouts
Okay, it's not a popular opinion, but I like the idea of the Electoral College. Similarly, I like having a Senate and a House of Representatives.
Long story short, if we did away with the Electoral College, and just went with a popular vote, basically, Presidential candidates would just have to win the East and West Coasts to win the White House. They could, almost completely, ignore everything in between, or outside of it, like Alaska and Hawaii.
Time for a short Civics lesson:
States elect Presidents, people don't, as a basic principle.
However, under the current system, a candidate could carry every state except California, Oregon, Washington, Michigan, Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylavania, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine (both coasts, mostly) and still win.
The flip side is that if a candidate carries those states, and wins one other ... no matter how small, and they are President.
Play around with this map, and see how the Electoral College works in the best interests of our country as a whole.
In a popular vote, however, the concerns of any State that has fewer than, let's say 10 electoral votes, becomes inconsequential.
In a popular vote, the concerns of the African-Americans becomes less than 10% of the popular vote, and, therefore, not noteworthy, at all.
Hispanics have a larger chunk, but not much. Enough to ignore, if you play to the right demographic.
On the other hand, if you add, let's say, Illinois to the list of states that our "loser" candidate won, then he is President, and he can completely blow off the entire Gulf Coast ... you know, the victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
Just don't count on those states to get re-elected.
That's the joy of the Electoral College. It empowers.
The Electoral College empowers:
a) minorities
b) small states with regional concerns
c) regions of the country that do not have enough population to sway a popular vote
d) the ideal the Founding Fathers envisioned for equality in our country
Popularly electing a President empowers:
a) New England, Florida/Texas, the Great Lakes region, and the West Coast.
Actually, if you want to get real racist about it, and elect a President by a white male majority (which still exists, in terms of a popular vote, in our country, then do away with the Electoral College, and go strictly by the Popular Vote.
So ...
If you like the Founding Father's idea, where minorities, regional concerns, spirituality and gender issues matter, then stand up for the Electoral College.
If not, then raise your right hand, kind of like the Nazis did, for the President elected solely by the WASP (White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant) male.
Long story short, if we did away with the Electoral College, and just went with a popular vote, basically, Presidential candidates would just have to win the East and West Coasts to win the White House. They could, almost completely, ignore everything in between, or outside of it, like Alaska and Hawaii.
Time for a short Civics lesson:
States elect Presidents, people don't, as a basic principle.
However, under the current system, a candidate could carry every state except California, Oregon, Washington, Michigan, Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylavania, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine (both coasts, mostly) and still win.
The flip side is that if a candidate carries those states, and wins one other ... no matter how small, and they are President.
Play around with this map, and see how the Electoral College works in the best interests of our country as a whole.
In a popular vote, however, the concerns of any State that has fewer than, let's say 10 electoral votes, becomes inconsequential.
In a popular vote, the concerns of the African-Americans becomes less than 10% of the popular vote, and, therefore, not noteworthy, at all.
Hispanics have a larger chunk, but not much. Enough to ignore, if you play to the right demographic.
On the other hand, if you add, let's say, Illinois to the list of states that our "loser" candidate won, then he is President, and he can completely blow off the entire Gulf Coast ... you know, the victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
Just don't count on those states to get re-elected.
That's the joy of the Electoral College. It empowers.
The Electoral College empowers:
a) minorities
b) small states with regional concerns
c) regions of the country that do not have enough population to sway a popular vote
d) the ideal the Founding Fathers envisioned for equality in our country
Popularly electing a President empowers:
a) New England, Florida/Texas, the Great Lakes region, and the West Coast.
Actually, if you want to get real racist about it, and elect a President by a white male majority (which still exists, in terms of a popular vote, in our country, then do away with the Electoral College, and go strictly by the Popular Vote.
So ...
If you like the Founding Father's idea, where minorities, regional concerns, spirituality and gender issues matter, then stand up for the Electoral College.
If not, then raise your right hand, kind of like the Nazis did, for the President elected solely by the WASP (White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant) male.
