|
Modern Man
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Sparhawk
I think the Electoral College raises some serious voter disenfranchisement issues, for example having states being "locked" red or blue. Where's the incentive to vote, when you know it isn't going to make a difference. I live in VA, granted we just elected a 'blue' governor, but the idea of it, or Texas, going for Dean or Gephardt instead of Bush is kind of laughable, in my opinion. Same with California and New York, just reversed. All of those voters are told over and over and over and over that their votes don't matter, and it infuriates me to have to concede the point.
A related problem when speaking of voter disenfranchisement is the congressional redistricting scams state legislatures have been running for the last however many years now. They have computer models so accurate these days they can seperate houses on the same block into different districts, in a shameful effort to make a district as 'safe' as possible. And I'm not pointing fingers at one party, red and blue, you're both just as guilty of it.
End result: A 96% incumbency re-election rate. Welcome to our very own Politburo: The U.S. House of Representatives.
My two suggestions:
Dump the electoral college, and make every vote count.
Take the power of redistricting out of the hands of the politicians trying to get re-elected, and give it to:
a) Some gubernatorially-appointed bipartisan commission, with the governor as the tie-breaking vote (easiest, and therefore least likely to solve the problem)
b) Give the power to the judicial branch, perhaps a 3 judge panel, all of whom have lifetime seats (more controversial, but more equitable IMO)
c) Use a computer model that doesn't factor in political party, only population and geographic area
Maybe if we can get back to the days when the Democrats in Congress didn't have to pander to their liberal base, and the Republicans in Congress didn't have to pander to their conservative base, and get back to the days when we had liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats, we can start unifying and stop dividing.
|
While agree with your statements regarding the redistricting fiasco and especially your last statement, I think the EC as a whole should stay. Instead of the people being told in the exit polls that their votes no longer matter you would be telling 41 states that their votes no longer matter. The issues of less populated states would never carry any weight in an election. You certainly wouldn't have anybody campaigning on promises to farmers. You wouldn't need anybody campaigning in the south. Just because there are more people in one central location, doesn't mean that rural issues should go unnoticed. Granted that may or may not happen if the EC were abolished, but it "could" very easily become a reality. I like the idea of assigning the electoral votes based on percentage of popular votes, but I'm sure there would be roadblocks there too. The EC balances votes geographically, which I still see as very important because cultures, values, languages, issues, and ideas, very geographically as well.
__________________
Lord, have mercy on my wicked soul
I wouldn't mistreat you baby, for my weight in gold.
-Son House, Death Letter Blues
|