Electoral College
On the surface, direct election of the President sounds good. In the past two elections, there were challenges in Florida and Ohio. (Losers frequently find defeat difficult to accept.) Under the Electoral College system recounts were primarily limited to one state in each election. Without the Electoral College, the call for recounts could go nationwide. This could prompt the kind of chaos that may presently be impending in Mexico. With all its flaws, the Electoral College system may still be the best way to manage almost 100 million votes.
EXTRA
You know how I love a good turn of phrase. In today's "Click & Clack" the following gives a chuckle: "I have a 1992 GMC van with a fiberglass roof. The problem is that the roof has two rather large holes in it due to a LOWER-THAN-PERCEIVED concrete support beam in my local shopping mall's parking garage."
posted by Don, American Idle @ 12:10 AM
1 Comments:
Actually, there'd be LESS likelihood of recounts with a national popular vote. Think about it: Currently, we have 51 separate elections for president. Like in FL in 2000 or OH in 2004, there's more incentive for fraud and monkey business when tipping a few hundred or a few thousand votes in one state can win you the presidency.
But with one big pool of 120 million voters, it's much less likely to be close. In fact, in the last 100 years, we've only had one election where the national popular vote difference was less than half a million votes. And the average margin between the top two candidates has been 8.9%.
Just because we might occasionally have close elections is no reason to oppose moving to a proper democratic election for president where every vote, in every state, is equal. Sure, we need to improve our election administration -- that goes without saying. But there's more incentive for, and likelihood of, recounts and shenanigans with the current system.
Post a Comment
<< Home