Posted by
Raven on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 9:52:48 PM
This post was inspired by a comment in the replies to another essay.
(Thanks Virgina Daddy for reminding me of this.)
Originally written April 2007
I found the following story quite interesting on more than
one level.
Sidestepping the Electoral College
I am always looking for how things are interconnected. It was pretty easy in this article.
"It's a stand on principle," said
Democratic Sen. Jamie B. Raskin, the sponsor of the bill. "What we're
saying is the person who won the national popular vote should be
president."
And of course I am sure this same sentiment would
have been expressed had Bush won the Popular vote and Gore won the Electoral
vote in 2000 right?
The bill is part of a national discussion on
whether the Electoral College should be changed or eliminated altogether
because it can lead to presidential candidates spending much of their time and
money in a small number of swing states.
Lets think about this using the rare thing called
logic. If it was a purely popular vote that elected the President then the
candidates would be spending time where? Where the most people were obviously.
Think: CA,TX,NJ,FL,NY etc. You know, the states that now have the largest
number of Electoral votes. So
instead of going to 'swing states' aka small populous states where their
Electoral vote could possibly make a difference in election, the candidates
would spend their time and money where the greatest congregation of voters
were.
Quick side note: Had this been in place in 2004
Maryland's Electoral votes would have gone to Bush instead of Kerry. Wonder how
Maryland would have dealt with that?
The change, supporters said, would also prevent
a repeat of the 2000 election, brought up repeatedly during debate, in which
Republican George W. Bush won enough key battleground states to win the
Electoral College despite losing the popular vote to Democrat Al Gore.
Hmm it seems we have stumbled onto the crux of the
matter. Once again the spectre of the 2000 Presidential Election rears its ugly
head. Apparently some people cannot accept what has occurred in the past. I
ask, if the results had been reversed, and there were Republicans whining about
an election that had been 'stolen' (A word that has been used quite frequently by Democrats)
I wonder how they would be received by Democrats or the media? A no-brainer
really.
The election of 2000, and the subsequent whining, is
an interesting thing to analyze.
First, it was not the first election that the
President won the Electoral vote but not the popular vote. It also occurred in
1824, {Though this election was determined by the
House of Representatives since no one had received the required number of
Electoral votes. This is also the only Presidential Election in which the
candidate receiving the most electoral votes did not become President
(since a majority, not just a plurality, is required to win). It is also often
said to be the first election in which the president did not win the popular
vote, although the popular vote was not measured nationwide.} 1876 and 1888. But of course since that stuff happened over 100
years ago it doesn't really count right? *cue sarcasm*
Second,
after brushing away all the rhetoric it
is quite easy to see who was to 'blame' for what happened in 2000. Who
is the one person who by accomplishing one simple thing, would have
caused this whole 2000 debacle to never have happened. Al Gore of
course.
How? Very simple really. By winning Tennessee, his
home state. The same state he representing for almost 30 years.
One
simple thing, that coincidently I really don't recall ever really being
discussed by the 'experts', would have solved everything. Its simple
math really. Tennessee has 11 Electoral votes.
Result of 2000
Bush: 271
Gore: 266
Had Al won his home state it would have looked like this.
Bush: 260Gore: 277
So
all of this leads us back to the original topic, the sidestepping of
the electoral college. There can be all these wonderful plans for
'change' but unless something drastic happens they are forgetting one
thing. Its unconstitutional.
That darn inconvenient document.
, to me it is just the next (and largest) indication that there is a lot of people who would be ok with the idea of tossing aside the concept of 'states'. Why would we need those when
In looking at this from the big picture, as I like to do, it is my opinion this is just another in the latest occurrences that get me to thinking that maybe there are some people (maybe more than just some) that just as soon see us rid ourselves of this whole tiresome 'States' concepts and just be one big happy country that simply follows the Kingdom of D.C.