Electoral College
The election is still in the future, but the main contenders have emerged, so pundits are looking at their maps and making their predictions. Each state's voting trends are examined and regional biases are weighed. The fairness of the whole system is debated. Dark claims of past cheating resurface. Self-appointed experts flog their computers in the hope they will predict the outcome. Yes, it's time to calculate the Maths of Eurovision Voting.
(The Eurovision Song Contest is one of my favorite topics; it is Exhibit A that proves Europe has a vulgar and immature culture compared to the U.S. See my previous posts on the topic. Also, have a look at this year's presumptive winner, the Swedish team fronted by Charlotte Perrelli, who continues the baffling and dismaying trend toward American Idol levels of quality. Hey guys, yer undermining my claims! I've got a nice, plausible narrative going here, and you're ruining it.! [OTOH, note that the Swedes have chosen to sing in English, the Native Tongue of all true pop singers--and not just any English, but good ol' Middle-Americanese {"Love will surrrrrrvive!"}])
Umie the Umlaut says, "ask your doctor about the Fredösphere!"
2 Comments:
The real issue is not how well Clinton, Obama, or McCain might do in the closely divided battleground states, but that we shouldn't have battleground states and spectator states in the first place. Every vote in every state should be politically relevant in a presidential election. And, every vote should be equal. We should have a national popular vote for President in which the White House goes to the candidate who gets the most popular votes in all 50 states.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule which awards all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state. Because of this rule, candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. Two-thirds of the visits and money are focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money goes to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people are merely spectators to the presidential election.
Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide.
The National Popular Vote bill has been approved by 17 legislative chambers (one house in Colorado, Arkansas, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, and two houses in Maryland, Illinois, Hawaii, California, and Vermont). It has been enacted into law in Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These states have 50 (19%) of the 270 electoral votes needed to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
The cool designed environments.We should have a national popular vote for President in which the White House goes to the candidate who gets guarantee.
Post a Comment
<< Home