25 January 2005

Electoral Reform?

Now now, don't get excited. I am not in favor of putting this country's national leadership in the hands of those idiots who live in the big cities. Why do you think those who are on the left want us to abolish the Electoral College? Because if we did, the will of New York City, Chicago, Philadelphia, and the state of California would dominate the decision of who leads this country.
So, rather than abolish the electoral system, why don't we make it more representative. The current system gives one vote per congressional district plus those of the Territories. There are five US Territories plus the District of Columbia. Now, traditionally these votes are cast in state sized blocks. For example, Ohio gets 26 Electoral votes. If a candidate wins the Ohio popular vote, he/she gets all 26 votes. Now how representing is that? Should we put our state's decision in the hands of those who live in Cleveland, Columbus, Akron, Cincinnati, Toledo, and Youngstown? I'd say no. I say what made Ohio such a battle ground state in the last election is block voting in the Electoral College. If each Congressional District had one vote to be cast individually by district, plus one vote each in the US Territories and the District of Columbia, then it would be more representative of the true will of the people. Because, let's face it, political lines are pretty split between urban and rural areas. Let's say candidate A wins the Ohio popular vote, but won only 7 Ohio Congressional Districts (those in the population centers), what about the will of the people in the other 19 Congressional Districts? Should our votes not count. That is what the current system would allow. And has in the past. Thank goodness this past election went the way that it did. That being said, there are 435 Congressional Districts, plus the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Samoa, Guam, the US Virgin Islands, and the Northern Marinas. So that would equate to 441 votes. If each vote counted separately, then each candidate would have to focus on winning each of those 441 voting Districts.
But why won't this happen? I'll tell you why. The current system give more power to the population centers of the country. Those are the same areas that political thought is more liberal than in traditional conservative rural America. That's why. If each district were counted separately then the true values of America would prevail.
Another idea is to give each state two votes. Each state gets two Senators, so why not two votes? Give two votes per state and one each to the US Territories and the District of Columbia. Whoever wins popular vote then gets the total number of votes for that district. So, Ohio would get two votes, California would get two votes, and New York would get two votes. But that won't happen either. Because it would deflate the influence of New York and California.
But if it were up to me, I'd say go the way of the Congressional District, because that would be more representative. Using the two vote method is still not representing the people in rural America. The cities in each state would still dominate that state's decision.
Now Our system is not perfect. But as they say, it's the best system going. However, there is nothing that says change would not improve that which is currently the best. Change only makes the best better and increases the standard.
I blog for Bush http://www.blogsforbush.com


Post a Comment

<< Home