I read an opinion peace in The Washington Post toady about electoral reform and the way certain states intend to address this age-old issue. George F. Will, opinion writer for The Post addresses new Pennsylvania legislation, the current law in Maine and Nebraska, and a new compact between several states in his article titled Electoral College reform and tilting the presidential balance.
Maine and Nebraska have current laws on the books that do not award all of the states electoral votes to the presidential popular vote winner. Instead, they employ a system in which the state awards one vote to the popular vote winner in each congressional district, with the remaining two electoral votes going to the overall popular vote winner in the state. Pennsylvania is poised to do the same with the legislature there working on legislation that their governor has promised to sign. These laws would split the states votes and lend some legitimacy to third party candidates who right now have none. A third party candidate might win some percentage of the overall vote but never win any electoral votes. These laws would change all that.
Will states that an even worse idea is being kicked around by 8 other states including California and the District of Columbia. They are in favor of forming a compact that says they will award all of the states electoral votes to whomever wins the overall popular vote nation wide. Will states that California would have gone to George W. Bush in 2004 even though 1.2 million more people in California voted for John Kerry. Will goes on to say that proponents of the compact are for straight popular vote elections, which we already have, within the states. The winner of the popular vote takes the electoral votes.
Will takes the stance that the framers of the Constitution wished for moderate, consensual governance with regional and other diversities, and they shaped the Electoral College system to reflect this want. The framers didn't foresee different political parties, but the electoral vote does hold to the values of federalism that they favored.
I think that the author aimed this article at every eligible voter. In the 2000 election, George W. Bush won the electoral vote, while Al Gore won the popular vote. The election itself was hotly contested and brought the issue of electoral votes and the Electoral College to the forefront of the American political scene. Before this, blue states were going to be blue and red states were going to be red. A lot of people felt their vote didn't count because they lived in a Democratic or Republican state. By popular vote alone, this would not be the case. Every vote would actually count.
It's an issue that affects all of us as voters and Americans. Do we abandon the way that America has run elections for decades; or do we stay with the traditions and laws that have governed elections since the inception of our country?
I've found it really hard to make up my mind on the issue. I see both sides. The electoral vote served its purpose in the past with its structure and format. On the other hand, it almost makes more sense at this day in age to go with the popular vote. Does the Electoral College really serve the Constitutional concept of majority rule?
I'm not sure to be honest, but I keep coming back to the same thought. America was founded on a set of dreams, and those dreams brought forth a country that was designed by men who acted on the best set of principals and knowledge that they had. We hold the structure of the Constitution, the values, and the concepts of America in the highest regard, which we should. I don't think changing it now would serve our history or us in a positive way.
No matter what, this issue is not going to go away and our state legislators are going to be the ones who ultimately decide how our electoral votes are distributed. Only by deciding and taking a stance one way or the other will we cause the change that we as Americans have the right to effect.
No comments:
Post a Comment