Thursday, November 04, 2004

The Electoral College

Shut Up Already

By Mark Connolly
Editor, Dallas Bureau
Now that the election is over, and this particular election does not have the ludicrously phrased issue of 'the moral weight' of the popular vote (said phrase used in the 2000 election to indicate Gore should be President) I'd like to point out something.

The Electoral College does register the popular vote -- State by State. We are, after all, The United States. A very deliberate decision was made to allow these sovereign states the ability to retain some impact in National Elections regardless of population. Alaska has like 12 people in it. But it is a huge state, larger than Texas and California combined, with a wealth of natural resources. The 12 people that choose to live there have rights as citizens of the State of Alaska. So, they vote as a STATE for the President. That vote is based on the popular vote IN THAT STATE.

Moral Weight. What a phrase. There is nothing moral about taking the voice of an entire state and simply telling that state they don't have enough people to matter. Who is going to speak for the needs of Alaska? People in New York? People in Texas? Nope. I don't care about Alaska, and neither does Hillary. Alaska people are supposed to care about Alaska, it's their state, not mine.

But if we do go to a nation wide popular vote situation, then the last vestiges of States Rights will soon dissolve. We won't be the United States of America. This is perhaps too subtle a point for many. So look at it this way.

How would you feel about every issue germane to your state being decided by someone in Nevada? Hell, legalized gambling and prostitution are good for Nevada, let's make it a national policy! Or, how about the farmer in Iowa having decisions about crops and farm aid and etc., made by retirees in Florida? Does that make any sense?

The people that choose to live in Nebraska, have rights in their state. And the needs of the people in that state must have some weight in national politics, or they will simply be ignored.

If you think States Rights matters, then you have to be in favor of the Electoral College. Do you think any party would have spent any time in Arkansas otherwise? And for all the people whining in New York about the popular vote in 2000, what they were saying, in a very self-centered manner, is this: "People in New York matter more than people in Nebraska." Hell, the probably believe that.

The people in Nebraska don't feel that way. Don't they have rights as well? Where is the morality in saying "You just don't have enough people to matter?"

Couldn't the same thing be said to African-Americans? They're only 13% of the population, who cares? Ignore them.

Is that what we really want? To ignore people because there just aren't enough of them to qualify as 'moral weight'?


Anonymous said...

Hey, I liked your explaination of the electoral college. Never thought of it as each state voting according to that state's majority vote.

And this is Diana, by the way. Just didn't want to go through the procedure of signing in. Miss you on the Group....

Frater Bovious said...

Well, thanks, Nanner!