[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A lot of people have recently suggested that the "winner-take-all" system
of electoral college votes is somehow unfair or unjust. Unfortuantely,
this meme is a very devious one, whose logical extension undermines our
entire basis of government.
The United States operates on a "winner-take-all" system of government.
One person is elected President, and that person gets to execute the Office
of the President for four years. There is no co-Presidency, no rotating
Presidency, no sharing of power.
Thus, in every vote there will be a winner and a loser. To listen to some
of you talk, anybody who votes for a loser has "wasted their vote."
Likewise, anybody who casts their vote for the victor when the margin of
victory is >1 has cast a "meaningless vote."
I hope you all can understand just how dangerous these memes are. Casting
a vote is all about participating in the process. Win or lose, it is the
casting of a vote and active participation in the political life of the
nation that helps give legitimacy to the process.
So, consider again, no matter how you construct it - there are still
winners and losers. If all states go to the Maine/Nebraska system, there
will still be "safe" Democratic and Republican districts, just like states.
All the purported "problems" that have been described will still very
much exist.
JDG
Yes, quite clearly, I said the winner-take-all electoral system in the states
is stupid. Allow me to clarify my meaning... Forgive me if I get a little
mixed up on the facts here, I got a very low "b" in American Politics, as it
is not a subject I much like. IIRC, the electoral college was set up for the
same reason the legislative branch was set up with a senate with 2
representatives from each state and House of representatives with the number
of representatives for that state being proportional to the population of the
state. Smaller states would not approve the goverment system without
adequate representation as they feared that they would be walked upon as the
colonies were walked upon by Britain. The electoral college was set up for a
similar reason. I stand behind and suport the electoral college on the issue
of giving smaller states a stronger voice. What I think is stupid is giving
the state for the 2 senators and one for each representative in the house of
representatives, then that is how the electoral votes should be devided as
well. It should be 2 for the state and one for each district. We do not
appoint house representatives by holding a state election and appointing all
the representatives in that state based on how the state voted on party
lines, so why should we do so for electoral votes? Personally, I think that
moving away from the winner-take-all system would *increase* voter turnout,
because each vote in *every* district could make a difference in the
electoral college.
Michael Harney
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
