Well, my vote is in. For the first time ever, I went down and threw my political 2 cents in. It was a lot easier than I thought it would be. I had visions of hanging chad's and bug eyed vote counters scrutinizing my ballot.
None of that. Just a couple of old ladies in a room.
A couple of things bothered me.
1. They didn't ask for my ID or Voter Registration card. All they did was have me sign, and put the last four digits of my Social Security number down. What if they found the numbers didn't match? Obviously they couldn't find the particular ballot I cast and pull it out. That's just asking for voter fraud.
2. The voting booth had no back. While I was voting, the machine next to me opened up (there were only two machines in the building.) and some guy walked right behind me to get to the machine. My whole voting scheme was open to his wandering eyes! I felt like I was in the second grade, hovering over my votes like they were the answers to my Spelling Quiz.
3. You know those little "I voted" stickers? Well, I didn't get one, and I'm more than a little bitter about that!!
In closing, I hope that all my candidates will win. I have been told that whether I vote Republican or Democrat for President this year really doesn't matter, because apparently Indiana is a strong Republican state. That's nice to know that no matter who I vote for, my vote doesn't really amount to much. I mean, if it were the case that "every vote counts" and in the end, the popular vote wins, then I would still think my vote went to the good of the bottom line.
But that's not the case. I guess this whole Electoral College thing confuses me. If Bush gets 800 votes in Indiana and Kerry gets 799...then Bush wins 11 EC votes, Kerry gets 0. What happens to 800 and 799? I would think that would still mean something, but it doesn't. I just don't understand, I guess.
I guess it's more the Majority of each State, than it is the Majority of the entire country, which also seems weird to me, but I'm sure there is a reasonable explanation. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to discredit the system, I'm just trying to understand.
Good luck to President Bush.
Good luck to Senator Kerry.
I hope the better man wins, whomever that may be, and I hope the country can accept the outcome either way and find a way to continue to live and prosper. I refuse to reveil my vote...except to the guy who walked behind me at the polls!
2 comments:
It would mean the same thing... Bush would win Indiana if he gets the most votes in Indiana as in your example 800 to Kerry's 799. Ergo, he wins the popular vote in Indiana, he wins all the Indiana electoral votes. Unless of course you have a dissenting State electoral vote - which has happened only 8 times in the entire voting history of our country and each of those times it was just one person (elector) who dissented and voted differently than the rest of the State. These people are called "faithless electors" and they can be prosecuted for not doing what the "people" charged them with doing (by their votes.) So you see your vote would count in Indiana towards the popular vote and as such would help determine for whom Indiana casts its electoral votes.
But you are right that in the "big picture" a president can be elected who does not win the National popular vote. It just so happened that this year Bush won the majority of the popular vote in the entire country by some 3 million votes.
Although the main reasons our founding Fathers decided on the Electoral College to select our president are no longer factors (no organized national political parties yet, no structure by which to choose and limit the number of candidates. In addition, travel and communication was slow and difficult at that time. A very good candidate could be popular regionally, but remain unknown to the rest of the country) there is still something to be said for the continuation of the electoral college. That simply is majority fraud or running up the vote. The direct election system is subject to types of fraud that are impossible under the Electoral College system. With direct elections, there would be an incentive for say Texas (Bush) to produce more Republican votes or Massachusetts (Kerry) more Democratic ones. Majority fraud would be hard to combat, because the majority party would also be responsible for counting the votes.
Clear as mud right?
It makes a little more sense, but one thing I still can't figure out from your post is this:
You said that the "faithless elector" could be prosecuted for going against the popular vote of the people in one state, but there is no foul if the electoral college goes against the accumulative vote of ALL the states. (2000 for example Gore won the Popular vote, but Bush had the EC votes.)
This confuses me. I see your point about the voter fraud...and I suspect we already have that going on now. Probably not in the grand scheme that you spoke of, but let's face it, the world isn't all roses and candy.
I do agree (if that was your side) that a straight vote election probably wouldn't work, either, especially when you have 115 + million votes to count. Plus, the advantage could go to a Presidential candidate from Cali or New York or Texas...especially if they were running against a person from Delaware, or a similarly small state.
Doesn't matter this election, however. As you said, Bush won the EC and the popular vote.
Post a Comment