The Electoral College converts the American electorate into an Orwellian Animal Farm

An article in the Toledo Blade called, Red-state Mississippi sits out this year’s election, author David Shribman writes,  “The Electoral College converts the American electorate into an Orwellian animal farm, where some states are more equal than others. There’s a real campaign in Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Colorado, Iowa, and maybe a half-dozen other places. Only one element of a classic fall is missing in Mississippi this year. There’s no presidential campaign.”

He continues, “But there’s no campaign here [Mississippi], where the GOP will win in an easy autumn stroll, just as Republicans will in Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, and both Dakotas. Nor is there a campaign in Illinois, Washington, Oregon, and California, where Democrats are confident and Republicans are in retreat, if not virtual retirement.”

Is this a true democracy? The terribly outdated concept of an Electoral College does not fit with a 21st century democratic United States. Yet, we are stuck with it. It would take a 3/4 majority of states to overturn that Constitutional requirement and the small states would never vote to repeal it. They receive their ‘power’ from such a set-up.

It must be terribly boring to live in Mississippi or California this autumn, with nothing to occupy the idle mind.  Of course, folks there might want to come to Ohio where things are terribly exciting and anything but boring.

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “The Electoral College converts the American electorate into an Orwellian Animal Farm

  1. “It must be terribly boring to live in Mississippi or California this autumn, with nothing to occupy the idle mind. Of course, folks there might want to come to Ohio where things are terribly exciting and anything but boring.”

    ROFL

  2. IMO, a popular vote is the only way to make your vote count the same as anyone else …
    That said, the US Constitution established the Electoral College to determine the President and Vice-President but it is up to the states to determine who the electors are and what rules they must adhere to. As such, some states are pretty definitive and others are not … such that Ronald Reagan got a vote in 1976 (from the State of Washington when the state went for Gerald Ford) and this year a number of electors have announced that depending upon how Mitt Romney fares, they might vote for Ron Paul. Thus even though your state may vote for Romney, Obama, Stein, etc … the electors may reject your preference.
    Also, all states do not determine their electors the same … in most states, electors are selected statewide, but in Nebraska and Maine, they are selected by Congressional District.

    The Republicans have put it in their platform to retain the Electoral College … but based on polling results and the number of states-in-play, there is a 20% chance that Romney could win the Electoral College … today,

  3. I bet if you did a poll on how many Americans know why the Electoral College was first set up, you find an overwhelming number of American voters don’t have a clue. And you’d find a very similar number do not understand how it works. But that’s not really the problem is it?

    How many voting Americans* actually know we use the Electoral College to elect the President today?

    * Wouldn’t it be fun to take a poll of the “fringe” bloggers and find out how they think American Presidenial Elections work from start to finish?

  4. “The terribly outdated concept of an Electoral College does not fit with a 21st century democratic United States. Yet, we are stuck with it. It would take a 3/4 majority of states to overturn.”

    And, Minnesota Central adds: ” but it is up to the states to determine who the electors are and what rules they must adhere to. ”

    While I agree changing the Constitution would be very difficult at the moment, that doesn’t have to be done to make a difference. As Minn Central points out the states are free to set the laws governing the electoral college in each state. There is a way. The way is to get individual states to simply tell the electors of their state to vote for the candidate receiving the most votes
    in the Presidential election nationally. In otherwords, the state electors would have to vote for the Presidential candidate that received the most
    votes on election day. This would put the small states in contention. Let’s say Mississippi so instructed its electors, and Obama wins the national popular vote. Mississippi’s electoral votes would go to Obama. In return,
    Mississippi could expect to receive national government favors for providing its votes to the winning candidate. It would be much easier to do
    this by individual state, than go through the amendment process…

  5. “It must be terribly boring to live in Mississippi or California this autumn, with nothing to occupy the idle mind.”

    Think about this, well over a billion dollars will be spent on a sham election where there is no real discussion of serious issues. Gun control, climate change, the War in Afghanistan, and lord knows what else will be dodged and replaced with posturing.

    In fact, there has been loads of posturing for beyond the past 4 years (yes, the interminable US elections start before the last one has ended). There is no real democracy in America, since someone can win the popular vote, yet win in the electoral college.

    Pennsylvania engages in the most outright thwarting of the right of franchise (while getting 26 out of 100 points from Brady). Not only has there been a clearly illegal and unconstitutional bill passed to stop voting, but the state has closed primaries and makes it impossible for third parties to run.

    When it comes to third parties, they are swallowed up by the two major parties.

    I think it was Jomo Kenyatta who said something along the lines of, how can you say were are not democratic if we have a one party system? Does your having a two party system make you twice as democratic as we are?

Comments are closed.