Missing The Boat-2 of 2: The College Is Killing the Country
editor’s note: this is the second of two pieces that deal with the media’s misplacement of focus within issues of critical import. The first piece can be found here.
These past few days I’ve read a number of expected and predictable pieces about the Electoral College. I’ve also read a number of pieces on the notion of two Americas.
I didn’t read anything that made a connection between the College and the rupture.
The Electoral College is what keeps Sarah Palin from coming to NYC for anything but a Saturday Night Live appearance. If New Yorkers and Californians aren’t in play for her, and she comes from the relatively isolated and insulated background that she does, it makes it easy for her to see the citizens of these and other deep blue states as two dimensional, unpatriotic Americans.
And if Barack Obama doesn’t have reason to go to blood red states because there’s nothing to be gained in his election bid, how are the people there supposed to see him as anything but an alien, discomforting being? And how is he going to absorb the feelings and orientations of people with whom he truly doesn’t, at present, have much in common with?
I just received an e-mail from the Obama campaign urging me to “Help Barack Win Battleground States”. I’m sure I’ll be getting something similar from the McCain campaign shortly.
States shouldn’t be battlegrounds. That only further polarizes an already divided nation.
The founding fathers created a provision for flexibility in the face of changing circumstances. It’s called a constitutional amendment. Most of the calls for abolishing the Electoral College have to do with giving every individual the right to make a difference in the presidential election.
This call is motivated by the desire to begin to close the chasm that’s been widening over the last 8 years.
The Electoral College, once a protector of state’s rights, now threatens the existence of the nation it helped midwife. It’s having the increasingly insidious effect of pitting brother against brother.
15 Comments
Leave a Response
Additional comments powered by BackType
How anyone can resist voting and getting involved during this historic time…
It’s no different anywhere else in the world though is it? Politics is seen as a battleground of competing ideologies. That’s good for rhetoric and soundbites, but highly impractical for the mechanism of running a country. People tend to sneer at the rainbow coalitions that occasionally appear in Europe but the truth is that for a government to truly represent the needs of the populace government has to be representative, it needs to be able to at least understand, if not agree with all the views of the populace, and realise that the reality of the world is not “us and them”. Like it or not we’re all in it together. Politics should be about pragmatic solutions, not competing ideologies.
Good post anyway.
obama went into battle ground states like my native colorado and won. he also went into virginia and north carolina and fought the good fight. what polls are you reading that say otherwise?
the three comments posted before me reveal a startling lack of reading comprehension….
to recap: this is not an argument against voting, or an argument that politicians aren’t fighting in battleground states (I admit, I’m not sure what the heck Salmonspartan is talking about), and yes, American politics IS different than politics in other parts of the world (you mentioned rainbow coalitions… I’ll dig deeper).
The American political system is 50 winner-take-all elections rather than a proportional parliamentary election (which many other democracies use to pick their representatives as well as their prime minister) or a single winner-take-all election (which you see in European presidential elections) which has 2 effects- First, it discourages politicians and parties from exerting an effort where they aren’t likely to get a win. Second, it discourages the existence of third parties. THAT IS WHAT THIS POST IS ABOUT.
I for one agree with the author’s opinion. Our electoral college propagates divisive politics and should be done away with. there will never be unity while liberals cast a blind eye toward red America and republicans do the same to blue America. the very nature of our politics divides the country in two, and only encourages that divide to grow.
Kyle: setting aside the first sentence in your last paragraph, which i appreciate, you have concisely summarized my argument in a way that may well be more effective than my more drawn out treatise. thank you for your insight and presentation. LK
There is almost no difference between McCain and Obama. That is why people don’t care in this ‘historic time.’ As a matter of curiosity is there any time which is not ‘historic.’ dumb.
not clear where you’re coming from, as this election was about one ultra diverging fork in the road. would love for you to elaborate.
thanks. LK
Obama still won in the national popular vote by like over 5 mil… So even though the electoral college thing sucks and should be abolished, this time anyway it still worked the way it should.
It’s times when the majority votes one way, and the electoral college votes another, that I think is the problem. And THIS is the MAIN problem with the electoral college.
We are a nation of united individual states, a union of states. This is the nature of this country, and it is only natural for there to be differences. It is actually rather functional that the votes take place in each state and are counted up for that state individually, first… I don’t think we should switch that to a national-counting system, for fear of losing that sense of individuality of states…(that system may even be easier to manipulate) Even if that doesn’t solve the whole battleground states and split nation problem.
Guys in the Scottish parliament we have a mix of 6 representative parties labour ( close to democrat), Conservative (close to republican), Scottish national party, Liberal democrat, socialist and green because our system has a representational voting system. This contrasts with our failed British parliament almost identical to your failed two party system.
73 are elected as constituency MSPs and 56 are elected as additional members, seven from each of eight regional groups of constituencies. This additional member system produces a form of proportional representation for each region.
Once the hype dies down you’ll realise your like Britain was in 1997 with Blair (historic because it was 18 years since last labour government and Blair was youngest ever PM) your stuck with a guy who has no idea how to fulfill his promises, he is just a king of spin and has been given too big a majority to be challenged by the opposition.
I loved the comment Obama made when he said “It’s never about red or blue states”…we have and always will be The United States of America” in his acceptance speech.
For many years, white man has reigned over large areas where no white man itself fully co-existed with its natural inhabitants. For them to see a (half)black dude take power in the greatest nation on Earth, is a victory no white man can comprehend….weren’t we all equal? Hadn’t we not abolished slavery and stuff like that? I know this is what it’s supposed to be but what is supposed to be isn’t what’s practised, though more widespread than before. When Obama was elected, many parts of the world who suffered under the reign of white man felt justified. Including the ones in the USA. 40 years is not long enough to forget.
Now that there is a black guy in office we’ll see if colour makes any difference. I think not, but from now on we’ll not be judging by colour for our leaders. And that’s in itself a big relieve. Whatever he will be doing, this achievement cannot ever be undone: he not only turned the USA in the biggest festivalsite we have ever seen, for a moment in time the war on terror was won. And I can only hope, you keep this moment in mind, this moment of common goal getting, for it’s all that stands between divide and terror or progression and solution.
LK, while I see your point, I have to wonder how well thought out it is. The United States was never intended to be a democracy. the founding fathers were very clear on that in their own writings, and the word “democracy” never appears in any of our founding documents.
The UNITED States is a union of states. Those states determine how electors, and representatives are chosen. The Constitution only spells out how the electors are apportioned.
If the United States were a democracy, wouldn’t the only states that mattered in an election be NY and CA? What would happen with Wyoming or even Kansas?
Appreciate the thought, and as it relates to the constitution and the notion of a nation of states you’re absolutely correct. The fathers themselves, in the form of amendments, made provisions for some flexibility that might be needed as time passed and chinks in the constitution’s armor showed up, and in this case, I believe one is warranted. If the US was a democracy, you’d have one person, one vote, and every individual, regardless of their state of residence, would matter.
A lesser evil than the current divisive state of things, I believe.
Well, that’s the silliest thing I’ve ever heard. The electoral college is the only preserving “unity” in this country. Personally, I don’t want to be one face in a sea of 300 million. I want to be a North Carolinian. I want my state to act like a state. It exists for a reason and it’s ours. Remove the electoral college and you will have struck the final blow–you will effectively abolished statehood.
Is that what you mean by “flexibility”? This a large country and many of the American states are the size of whole nations. They deserve to be autonomous. They deserve to decide things as sovereign entities. This absurd notion that the electoral college somehow divides people is getting tiresome. What the college does is allow states to settle an election internally as one whole state. That is, North Carolinians vote and the votes are tallied, North Carolina reaches a decision…as North Carolina.
If people like you ever succeed in abolishing the electoral college, we will cease to be living a federal republic. Instead, we will have the Californian hegemony. Perhaps that is really what you want….
One has to ask, how much of the national electoral process was the result of the geography and transportation methods of the founder’s time. It would have been a daunting task to give voice to individuals scattered over the new Republic. The college allowed states to be represented by non essential members of their communities with a minimum of expenditure. How would the founders have structured the process if they had the internet, or even the modern postal system?
Government needs an overhaul from the county level up. Most states are divided into redundant taxing entities that were formed with the limitation of a day’s buggy ride in mind. As example, Iowa is divided into 99 counties, each with many paid officials doing exactly the same work as their counterparts a few miles down the road. Consolodation will not be likely to be initiated by politicians who make their living at that level, so it will require a citizen’s movement above the present political structure.
Interjecting national thinking into Presidential elections would be a good start to a process of making government more responsive to the individual, who was viewed as supreme in all other matters considered by the founders. The representitive makeup of the Senate will keep the relevancy of the states intact in national policy. One person, one vote would also eliminate much of the potential fraud now present in the election process and depower local officials where they should have no authority. The result would be a more responsive government with a multi-party system representative of the people.
old and grumpy (see above) sounds young and innovative. doesn’t sound all that grumpy either. a far more comprehensive response than mine and i’m grateful for it.
please stay in touch. LK