Supporters of President Obama, gay marriage, health care reform, and women’s rights are feeling more cheerful this weekend. But the prevailing mood around the country is more likely just relief. When the news cycle shifted to a devastating hurricane last week and it seemed like a welcome respite, you could tell the 2012 campaign was a dispiriting exercise.
American elections have become superficial, soul-sapping slogs through a small handful of battleground states, with much of the nation watching aghast as dunning campaign ads leave the truth in tatters. The barrage reduced one Colorado toddler, and probably a few adults, to tears.
Comments
In the interest of making every voter feel like his or her vote actually counts, why can't electoral vote be broken down by percentage of popular vote? Here in New Hampshire we have 4 electoral votes. Instead of all four going to the one who gets the most votes, why not assign a value based on the percentage of votes. Obama received 52.2% of the popular vote and Romney received 46.4%. That would give Obama 2.08 points and Romney 1.856 points. The end result would be the same but I would feel like my individual vote really counter.
That would make sense. Now try to get all 50 states to agree. Good luck.
Maine and Nebraska already do that, but by district. As you know, the number of electoral votes corresponds to the sum of Senators and Representatives from that state. Maine has four electoral votes. The overall winner in the state gets two votes (the 'senate' vote) and the winner of each district gets that vote (the 'representative' vote). Thus, one vote might go the the other candidate in Maine's or New Hampshire's case. Each state decides how to allot its electors, however, so as Lavrans points out, getting all the states, or even three-fourths of the states, to agree to a national standard would be difficult.
THANK YOU! These are indeed the problems and the potential solutions citizens should be DEMANDING...the only thing I would add is term limits. I was always against term limits but the avalanche of money keeping these incumbents in office for life makes term limits the only recourse for citizens.
Term limits would mean a contsant flow of inexperienced newbies into Congress, which is what happened in 2010 when the Teaparty took over the House of Reprehensibles. Look how that worked out. Term limits force the firing of the more eperienced. Would you fire teachers or CEOs the same way? If you want change, vote for it.
Another problem you did not identify is the gerrymandering that goes on. If there were more Democratic votes cast than Republican votes, then you would exect that reflected in the Congress. That is certainly the case with the Senate, where gerrymandering cannot be practised, but the House is another matter.
Especially true if the Forces of Evil gerry-mander Democtratic seats in the Huse right out of existane, as has actually happened. The Forces of Evil (Conservative Norquist Fascists) never fight fair.
@ Lavrans, it's safe to say that happens on both sides.
Interesting theory that if we were to drop the electoral college that the county would somehow magically become more bipartisan. I'm not seeing the direct correlation. In essence you are claiming that people actual move their families and all their worldly possessions to another region because of voting patterns; I don't think people do that. The reasons people move are a bit more complicated than that. We have a divide between people with money and people who don't, and we have a divide between rural America and urban. What we need to get back to are the days when you could be close friends with your neighbor who has different political views. What that means is that the views themselves aren't so far apart. That we have a broader base on which to agree. As many op-ed writers are talking about this week, the party that needs to change is the Republican party. Republicans have lost their way. Just look back at the cast of characters they put forth in the Presidential primaries this election term. Crazy-eyed Christian fundamentalists and corporate sycophants are a losing strategy in the general election. I'd be fine with letting the electoral college go but I'm not niave enough to think that people will cluster less just because politicians would go to every state. Only if it forced them to temper or balance their actual message.
'American elections have become superficial soul-sapping slogs' in which political hack strategists have annihilated legal bounds in order to gain tactical advantage. Point one, early voting for no reason other than party hack wishing for influence over later voters. Point two, governing officials suddenly offering uncontrolled access to any old voting place to allegedly replace voting booths damaged by storms or other unexpected problems, all in the name of providing a vote for people, whether or not those people have already voted, can prove their eligibility, or other nearly unanswerable issues. Neither of these scenarios are democracy in action - each is more a step on the road to anarchy chosen by officials unwilling to provide alternative methods that may be needed once in a while. The early vote is the more particularly heinous of the two.
Enough this nonsense about "states rights". It's time to federalize elections for national offices. As long as each state continues to be allowed to devise its own system, you're going to have unavoidable inconsistencies. There is a Federal Elections Commission; let's put it to its best use and create a universal means of voting. Once in place, this sytem may also improve the means to hold state and loccal elections. We call our selves the "United" States; time to make that "unified."
Excellent point.
It's just possible that by ending the Electoral College system and go to the popular vote, we could do more to accomodate additional political parties, such as the Libertarians, the Greens, Whigs, Tories, Bull Mooses, Communists, and the Tea Party. This would make our national elections much more interesting, and more reflective of the our many divergent points of view.
For Presidential elections we would still need a mechanism to account for how closely split this country is. Since we are as populous as we are, it would be a huge challenge, but we would need some sort of run-off process, at least for when the leading two are in a statistical tie. We would also need to decide if it is necessary for the winning candidtate to have won a majority of all votes cast, or do we accept a plurality? For all its faults, that is something the Electoral College solves. We do need to decide as a nation how we want to do that.
This comment has been removed.
Ms Loth provides an argument for moving to popular vote, but the column overlooks the basic fact that President Obama won the popular vote as well. Referring to the Electoral College, Ms. Loth writes, "Sure, President Obama has mastered this game." Perhaps, but he has now won a majority of the popular vote in both his election and in his reelection.