Sort of on the topic of the Constitution (and more specifically Article II), there's a lot of talk about a new method of counting electoral votes in California.
In summary (but still read one of those articles, please), a petition is going around to add a ballot initiative to change the electoral system in California so that electoral votes from each congressional district go to the candidate that wins that district, rather than the "winner takes all" system in place now. This could mean that if California's popular vote goes to one party, the other party (historically in this state, republicans) could still gain electoral votes from the state.
On one hand, I feel that the electoral college system as is, which we'll talk about later this term, is not the best system we could be using. On the other hand, I don't know that changing the laws in one state and one state alone, especially if it is done with ulterior motives, is a good idea either.
Hopefully, if this goes to a vote, it will provoke discussion among citizens all over the country about the constitution and electoral college while staying away from "changing ze rules in ze middle of dahh game," as Arnold Schwarzenegger put it.
Bob Herbert (very liberal NYTimes columnist) is in opposition to the idea.
Another thought: I don't know how Claremont's district normally votes, but if something like this were passed, would it prompt anyone to vote in California rather than your home state? What other effects could come from this? Personally, I think I'll be casting my vote for the Gore/Bloomberg ticket in NY.
3 comments:
I would definitely be voting in California. I don't know why we don't split electoral votes in all states. That way, we could allow third parties their time in the sun because every ten percent throughout the country will add up. Gerrymandering will be less likely to be effective.
yep-- single member party district definitely harbors a two-party system. See Duverger's Law. Countries with systems like the one proposed often have more than two major parties.
The problem with district based voting is that you are essentially leaving the presidential contest up to the state legislatures. Because the legislatures draw the districts, and most of the time do so to benefit the majority party of the state legislature's fellow party members, the districts could be drawn to overwhelmingly support one type of candidate (ex. Religious Conservative, Liberal Dove, Democrat, Republican, etc...). If we believe in markets and competition in this country, than using gerrymandered districts (of either party) would violate our principles. While I believe our current way of apportioning electoral votes is flawed and disenfranchising, I believe district electoral votes would be an even more flawed process.
Post a Comment