|
EDITORIAL - The incredibly close national presidential election has given us all something to talk about this week. Predictably, much of the talk has all too obviously not been preceded by thought.
An event of this magnitude, with the ostensible seat of government at stake, has horrified many people. Something must be wrong with the way we elect our leaders, they feel, when a one- or two-week delay must be endured to determine the outcome to a verifiable degree of certainty. This is further proof that the Electoral College is antiquated, they say. Punch-card voting is obsolete in the information age, they say. Non-standard ballot design is an accident waiting to happen and should be illegal, they say.
Falsetto whining of the first water, we say.
The narrowness of the vote margin in Florida and elsewhere only points out how desperately an ordered society needs an Electoral College. Without such an intermediate buffering body, our president would be chosen directly by people too stupid to follow a large black arrow from their candidate's name straight to the correct punch-hole, for instance. Or too stupid to request a new ballot after punching two holes. Or too stupid to bother voting in the first place, only to demand a "re-vote" when they belatedly realize Garsh! their vote would actually have counted. The Electoral College was the Founders' guarantee to posterity that the President of the United States of America would forever be chosen by responsible people.
The Electoral College is enshrined as an original part of the Constitution. It was the procedure set by the Founders for selection of the Executive branch leader, the person responsible for maintaining our federal system of government. The states elect their own Congressmen and Senators, but the head of the branch administrating these houses was not ever intended to be a popularly elected official. Approximately no one understands this. Not only would getting rid of the College entail a Constitutional Convention, called by a two-thirds majority of Congress (which is not going to happen), but it assumes that there is a better system available to take its place.
What would that be?
Direct presidential election by the people sounds nice, if you can get past its unconstitutionality. A century ago we fought the Civil War over the concept of States' Rights, which would be further trampled by such a system. State boundaries would be invisible during the election, but would remain very real for appropriations. And how, exactly, would direct election eliminate the chance of Florida happening again? It wouldn't, of course.
But the folks (read: Democrats) now calling for recounts and revotes traditionally have never been too concerned with the federal system of government or states' rights.
A Proposal - Since the members of the Electoral College are selected by the outcome of the state vote, and are numbered one for each U.S. Representative and Senator from that state, why not this? Refine the selection of the College by having each Congressional District outcome choose an Elector. A majority of state Congressional Districts won by a candidate will win him the bonus of the two "Senator" Electors from that state. In case of a tie between the "District" Electors, the "Senator" Electors split. In this way, the entire state's electoral votes will be divided up more in accordance with the vote of the people, and the Constitution will be preserved. It is the States' prerogative to select Electors, and the states can change that process without affecting the Constitution.
Sounds reasonable, doesn't it? Guess what. Democrats will never buy it. And they may have a good reason not to buy it.
Republicans currently hold the majority in Congress. Congress redraws congressional district boundaries every ten years according to census results, in an effort to maintain population balance between districts. This way, each Representative theoretically serves the same number of constituents. Gerrymandering, the redrawing of congressional lines to best enhance a party's hold on office, is enough of a scandal now, without adding to the prize.
Also, this system might allow a third-party candidate to win enough electoral votes to prevent anyone winning a majority of Electoral College votes. That constitutionally would send the election to the House of Representatives, which has not happened since 1824 when it resulted in the election of John Quincy Adams, who did not win the popular vote and who was the son of a former president.
We at ridertown.com suggest this course: inaction. That's right, do nothing. Relax, the system is working, people. Most, if not all, of the problems ascribed to the electoral system have in fact been raised not by the election itself but by the news media's reporting of it. Competition among them has resulted in them being WRONG. Viewers' reaction to the media's inaccuracy has been to call for... changing the government?! Of course! - if you believe that the media is the government, an understandable mistake, depending on what the definition of "is" is. BS. Change the channel.
We do not legally have to have a new president until January, even though we have needed one for eight years.
There is no hurry now.
|
