Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tully Mars
But the EC doesn't insulate against candidates ignoring this state, that demographic or even a particular region. Heck the GOP currently has one candidate who's ignored, basically, every state but Florida so far. I don't think his strategy is going to work. But it could be argued he'd be less likely to even attempt this political chess move if it weren't for the EC. Could also pull out a bunch of graphs and stats and argue that the EC is the only reason he would try such a move.
|
Thing is, getting the nomination has nothing to do with the Electoral College, so that has no bearing on Giuliani's decision. The delegate system is similar, but not the same. Also, Giuliani is focusing on Florida as his
starting point. He can't win the nomination with only Florida. What he can do, though, is not spend money in states he
knows he'll lose and, instead, focus on the earliest state he can win in. After he probably wins in Florida, he'll have thrust himself even more onto the national stage than he already was, and his hope is that that win plus his already national recognition as "America's Mayor" will help him win big on Feb 5. He may be right, he may not be, but his strategy says nothing of the Electoral College or the delegate system for nominations. Once he theoretically wins the nomination, he'd end up campaigning nationally just like anyone else would.
Quote:
|
Not sure about the "tyrrany of majority" or the origins of the Iowa caucus or the NH primary. But I'm also not sure I disagree with what you're saying. I would add the founding fathers were also looking to find a way to deal with the logistical problems facing a national election in a country geographically spread out over so many miles with no modern means of communicating.
|
No doubt, the technology of their time was certainly different and added to the difficulties. Still, it is preventing factions and protecting individuals from the majority that Madison and others frequently referred to when debating what eventually became our consitution.
Federalist #10 is particularly relevant.
Quote:
|
Some people are ignored and some are not. No doubt about it. Currently our system seems to spread the influence to those most able to spread wealth in the right direction. Would doing away with the EC solve this or create a larger deeper wound? I honestly don't know. I do find it odd that the one election we use this type of system is when we're electing the person those going to hold the highest attainable office. Every other time we use a one person, one vote system.
|
Well, first, it should be said that saying the Electoral College is not "one person, one vote" is misleading. Every one person gets one vote, it's just that what those votes do is determine who their state's electors go to. Also, there is no other national office that involves such a broad election as that of the president. Even senators, who have the next largest base of voters, are limited to campaigning in only one state.
The wealth issue is separate from the Electoral College issue and it is indeed a big problem. But changing or removing the Electoral College would, at best, do nothing to solve it. The reason money is important in elections isn't because of the Electoral College, it's because 1) there is a snowball effect: for every expensive campaign, all others need to become more expensive as well, and 2) campaigning must be done all over the US. There are lots of ideas to solve the money issue, such as 100% publicly financed campaigns, but those are a different subject (not to mention that the current opinion that money = speech prevents the government from limiting campaigns to a set public fund).
I've also been a bit negligent in this discussion, because I've failed to mention that while I don't see the Electoral College as a problem, I also don't think our voting system doesn't need changes. That's simply not the change I advocate. Rather than seeing the Electoral College as a problem in our voting, I believe it is the way we vote in and of itself that is the problem. Anyone who has heard the phrase "wasted vote" in regard to third party candidates, or anyone who is currently thinking about voting for Edwards in a primary election knows exactly what I mean. As voters in an American presidential election, we are given the option of voting for one person and one person only, but the fact is our views are typically far more complex than that. People are not single-minded: we don't advocate one candidate and dislike all the others equally. We have second choices, third choices, and so on. We need to be able to vote in a way which reflects those views. Conveniently enough, when the votes are tabulated properly, this method of voting also has the benefit of selecting the person who is preferred over all the other candidates in a head-to-head match. If we were to vote using a method that fulfilled the
Condorcet Criterion, I think the electorate would generally be far more satisfied.