This article caught my attention because it seemed to be suggesting some sort of alteration of the electoral college. The author was criticizing unfair voter practices, and suggesting possible methods to make voting more fair. Personally, I can't even begin to understand why the electoral college still exists. After all, America is based on the idea that all people are equal and that are government is of, by and for the people. Therefore, I see absolutely nothing that could justify a process that makes some votes count more than others. If more Americans vote for a candidate, that candidate should win. It is as simple as that. I find it disgusting that politicians focus on methods of cheating the system in order to win elections. How about focusing on the issues, and winning popularity through good ideas? But I guess it's impossible for anyone to get far in politics with that kind of thinking, which is too bad. Maybe if all the effort politicians put into meaningless propaganda and attempting to pass partisan legislation was put towards fixing national and international problems we would actually be accomplishing things.
That said, I still think the article was pretty good. It doesn't look like the electoral college will be disposed of anytime soon, so if other legislation can lessen the unfairness, that sounds great to me. It makes no sense that electoral college votes are based on population rather than voter turnout. People who do not vote are still being represented, which makes no sense, because their actual opinion is not being taken into account. The idea that the article suggests, which is to give electoral college bonuses to states with higher voter turnouts, seems like a great one to me.
The article appealed heavily to pathos and logos. It described the facts of unfair practices and ways that political parties attempt to rig the system. It is worded so that people see the article from the author's point of view. It talks about ideas like injustice, democracy, etc. that definitely bring out emotion in people. Hopefully people see the sense that this guy is making. Still, I can't wrap my head around the fact that our country doesn't not treat every vote equally. What I would like to know is who exactly is shutting down the attempts to do away with the electoral college entirely. I suppose it's ironic that if everyone's opinion mattered equally, perhaps the electoral college would be eliminated, but until it is eliminated people will never be equal.
Article: http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/15/got-more-voters-get-more-electoral-votes/?ref=opinion
Good job Kelly, good insight onto one of the many current issues of politics!
ReplyDeleteThis is irritating because Americans are always so proud that their country is a republic where we have the right to vote and elect our leaders, when in reality the system is so much more corrupt than that.
ReplyDeleteThe National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
ReplyDeleteEvery vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. There would no longer be 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of other states.
When the bill is enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes-- enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.
The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in closely divided Battleground states: CO - 68%, FL - 78%, IA 75%, MI - 73%, MO - 70%, NH - 69%, NV - 72%, NM-- 76%, NC - 74%, OH - 70%, PA - 78%, VA - 74%, and WI - 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK - 70%, DC - 76%, DE - 75%, ID - 77%, ME - 77%, MT - 72%, NE 74%, NH - 69%, NV - 72%, NM - 76%, OK - 81%, RI - 74%, SD - 71%, UT - 70%, VT - 75%, WV - 81%, and WY - 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR - 80%,, KY- 80%, MS - 77%, MO - 70%, NC - 74%, OK - 81%, SC - 71%, TN - 83%, VA - 74%, and WV - 81%; and in other states polled: CA - 70%, CT - 74%, MA - 73%, MN - 75%, NY - 79%, OR - 76%, and WA - 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.
The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions possessing 132 electoral votes-- 49% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
NationalPopularVote
To abolish the Electoral College would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population.
ReplyDeleteoh toto! hahahahhaha nice job kelly, very interesting. Ahhhh
ReplyDeleteDear United States of America,
Please stop playing games with us.
Sincerely,
your citizens