It’s
not surprise that the Electoral College has been under scrutiny, post election.
Retiring Democratic California Senator Barbara Boxer filed legislation to
abolish the Electoral College that propelled Donald Trump into the Presidency.
Most
are calling into question the purpose of the Electoral College – finally
understanding what it is - because of the controversy that Hillary Clinton won
the popular vote. I’m sure most Americans that were not knowledgeable about
politics assumed that when you vote for a candidate, it’s tallied at that and
left at that. “When all the ballots are counted, Hillary Clinton will have won
the popular vote by a margin that could exceed two million votes, and is on track
to have received more votes than any other presidential candidate in history
except Barack Obama….this is the only office in the land where you can get more
votes and still lose the Presidency. ”[1]
Rightfully
acknowledged by Barbra Boxer, the abolishment of the Electoral College is the
correct thing to do. In an attempt to give the rural countries a larger role in
the primaries, they have also neglected the votes of larger states. Just
because California, New York and Texas have large populations doesn’t mean they
should be tallied in Electoral numbers. Every eligible voter should be counted
and not be considered part of a blue or red state.
“One
person, one vote” is exactly what we preach but don’t enact. I’m not going to
blame the Conservative Republicans for the idea of the Electoral College –
although I’m entitled too – because we should be focused on how to get rid of
this map that is supposed to help accurately represent the other states, when
all it does is wrongfully depict the ideals of Americans.
We
on the West Coast have all been frustrated over the fact that Trump became our
President. But the part that bothers me the most, as I’m sure it bothers others
too, is that Clinton technically won. The democrats don’t need to “rethink” how
to speak to the American people again, they have been doing it since 1992 –
except one of George Bush’s terms. With Bill Clinton in the house, then Al Gore
(who should have been in the house and won the popular vote in Americans as
well, via Bush v. Gore) Barrack Obama
and lastly Hillary Clinton, were all Democrats who won the Presidency. More
American’s had voted for them, than the opposing party – now tell me why you
would need to add a system that also “counts” the votes of rural America.
To
make this clear, I would have no hesitation voting for a Republican President.
However, when you have these candidates representing Congress – who are clearly
corrupt and traditional in their approaches toward abortion, filibusters, gay
marriage, climate change, jobs that aren’t
involved with natural gases, and so on – they are not appealing to the new
generation.
Educating
Americans is our only hope to avoiding these issues. We need to start making
climate change a priority, implementing the ideals of today’s norms while also,
and most importantly, abolishing the damn electoral College.
And
if we don’t get rid of this system by the next Presidency, then my Australian
dual citizen title will come in handy.
[1] http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/2016-election-day/close-no-cigar-what-do-losing-presidential-candidates-do-next-n673901
It is interesting that you pointed out the generational divide between Congress and its people. There has always been a misconception that the older you are, the more experience you have. Perhaps we as a society are evolving to a more quality-delivered society rather than a quantity-delivered one. I agree, the Electoral College needs to be abolished because I feel as if I am completely misrepresented, and I know that I am not the only one. I also want to further agree on your point that education is key to solving social issues. Perhaps we must intermingle the best media minds in the world with the best public intellectuals and see what happens. Leo DiCaprio's stance on environmental change has been recently documented on a documentary called Before the Flood. I recommend watching it as it is tasteful, not preachy, knowledgeable and extremely human.
ReplyDeleteI think conversation about the problems with the electoral college began to surface exponentially after Trump's victory. It would have been interesting to see if the same issues would have been brought up if Clinton had won the presidency. Perhaps it would have, but by Trump supporters instead of by angered liberals.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the sentiment, but abolishing the electoral college is somewhat of a kneejerk reaction and would easily be shut down by the incumbent republican congress as democrats acting like sore losers (and not for incorrect reasons). A compromise in the middle would be to reinstate the deliberative body aspect of the electoral college. Originally in its concept the college was held and the delegates would debate the president elect to vet for any issues with the candidate, as a bulwark against a demagogue take over (which is exactly what Trump has been). If we reinstate the debate process that hasn't been practiced for near two centuries I think we could see the body act more responsibly than the automatic votes they have become, without all of the political fallout of challenging the college.
ReplyDeleteLet's be clear -- abolishing the electoral college will never happen. It would require 3/4 of state legislatures to approve, and what state (like Michigan or Alabama) is going to cede power to California to maintain a perceived moral high-ground--especially when Republicans gain so much (recently) by having the electoral college system. And even if it was possible, would abolishing it really make a difference? Candidates would not automatically come to California. California is still a blue place. Candidates would still campaign where persuadable voters live. Elections would likely go much the same as they have in the past (with the exception of popular vote superiority, which I believe many people support).
ReplyDeleteLet's be clear -- abolishing the electoral college will never happen. It would require 3/4 of state legislatures to approve, and what state (like Michigan or Alabama) is going to cede power to California to maintain a perceived moral high-ground--especially when Republicans gain so much (recently) by having the electoral college system. And even if it was possible, would abolishing it really make a difference? Candidates would not automatically come to California. California is still a blue place. Candidates would still campaign where persuadable voters live. Elections would likely go much the same as they have in the past (with the exception of popular vote superiority, which I believe many people support).
ReplyDeleteI've signed petitions to abolish the electoral college, but I have absolutely no hope that it will ever actually happen. And I am absolutely positive that I am biased against it, as a Democrat who has always lived in California. I want my vote to have just as much weight as a person in, say, Wyoming, but as long as their votes outweigh mine, we will never effectively vote on any legislation that will begin to change this. Why would anyone support legislation that would make their own vote count less?
ReplyDeleteThis criticism seems ridiculous. Hillary Clinton lost the election--fair and square. Trust me, I wanted that nazi, fascist asshole to lose the election more than anyone else. But, after Hillary lost, it seems fruitless to try to delegitimize the electoral college.
ReplyDeleteInstead of calling for the end of the electoral college, we (democrats) should be organizing and building a strong labor movement that can defeat Trump. If we want to stop this evil man, being "butthurt" will not suffice. We need to accept his terrible victory and try to stop the worst parts of his fascist reign.