Gord:
I agree with Jeroen that national ballots are extremely unlikely to be
accepted. There is too much suspicion of the Feds for this to happen.
But his suggestion that a voter must show ID won't work either.
Requiring ID would be seen as an attempt to intimidate minority voters,
with perhaps good reason given the history of some regions.
About proportional representation. The constitution states that each
state will chose a slate of electors. But that doesn't mean that each
state has to give all it's electors to the winner of that state, it's
just that most states do. Every state has two electoral votes
(corresponding to the senators) plus one for every representative.
Maine (and one other I can't remember) give two electors to the winner
of the state, plus one elector for the winner of each congressional
district (Maine has two, IIRC). Admittedly, it doesn't make much
difference for Maine, since it only has 4 electors. But if California
or New York did it there would be a big change.
But the trouble is that it is up to each state to change itself. New
York is a heavily Democratic state. Right now, the Democratic
presidential candidate is very very likely to get all the electors. I
know Reagan won NY vs Mondale, but most of the time it goes to the
Democrats. And the Democrats control the state, notwithstanding a
Republican governor and Republican mayor of NY city. So, why would the
Ds change the procedure, since it will very likely give the Rs a few
more electoral votes?
There have been suggestions to abolish the Electoral college. Well,
that might happen, but I doubt it. A constitutional amendment
requiures 2/3 of the house and 2/3 of the Senate, then it is submitted
to the state legislatures. 3/4 of the state legislatures have to
ratify it. I can easily see that many of the small population states
won't want this system changed, all you need is 13 states to veto the
amendment. And given that most of these small states are western,
conservative states suspicious of tampering with the sacred
constitution, I would be very surprised if we changed this in time for
the 2004 election.
Anyway, the point is that electoral reform is difficult because the
current rules are what put the current officeholders in place. Any new
electoral rules that weaken an entrenched incumbency will be fought, or
twisted to favor the incumbency. Often these seemingly outdated
procedures remain on purpose in order to bias the election results.
=====
Darryl
Think Galactically -- Act Terrestrially
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Get organized for the holidays!
http://calendar.yahoo.com/
