Posted on 11/03/2004 2:43:59 AM PST by JohnHuang2
Wednesday, November 3, 2004
By Burt Prelutsky
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
Every four years, it seems, we all have to suffer through a season of incessant whining. No, I'm not referring to the usual complaints about the Olympic judges, but to the very existence of the Electoral College.
We live in a democracy – goes the whine – where every citizen's vote is supposed to be equal to everybody else's. So, what's with this elector business? What it is, is brilliant. Those gents in the knee britches who put our government together from scratch didn't disdain democracy, but most of them prized states' rights and, as they showed in creating the three separate branches of government, a system of checks and balances.
They didn't want a few hugely populated states to determine who'd be president. So, although the number of electors from each state is determined by population, the founding fathers realized that the only way it would work is if it were winner-take-all, with the winning candidate taking all of a state's electoral votes, no matter how large or small his victory margin. They didn't want anybody to be elected simply because he was able to run up massive pluralities in a few states – they sought to ensure that the president represented the entire country.
Thus, if Kerry, for instance, were able to carry New York, California and Illinois, by 2 million votes in each state, Bush could score an equal number of electoral votes by squeaking out the narrowest of victory margins in Maine, Alaska, Iowa, South Carolina, Tennessee, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Mississippi, Arizona and Arkansas. So, while Kerry might garner as much as 5 million more votes than Bush in those 18 state contests, it should be fairly obvious that Bush would have wider appeal across the entire nation than mere nose-counting might otherwise indicate.
Thus, a presidential candidate – be he Republican or Democrat – can capture the so-called popular vote without winning the election. You may not like it, especially if your candidate is on the losing end, but your argument isn't with the candidates or even the two parties, but with the founding fathers. And if I might make a suggestion: Forget it! They were a lot smarter than you are.
They weren't just smart, either – they were psychics. Why do I say that? Well, you may have already noticed that although the elections are held in early November, the inaugurations don't take place until mid-January. Why that two-month gap, except to allow Florida plenty of time to count and then re-count its ballots four or five times?
bump
Maybe the best simplest explanation I have seen.
Quite frankly, the founding fathers created our Government framework based on the successes of past world governance models with the knowledge learned from the failures as well. They knew what would succeed and what would cause failure.
The founding fathers did not invent the winner-take-all rules of the Electoral College. They simply said the president would be selected by electors chosen by the states. It was the states who came up with the winner-take-all scenarios.
My boss and I had a friendly argument yesterday about the EC. She thinks its unfair. I never convinced her otherwise. Sending her this article. Thanks for posting.
I don't suppose You bothered to post this over at DU?
(Nevermind they don't have enough collective mind to understand this)
Have a great day;)
I don't suppose You bothered to post this over at DU?
(Nevermind they don't have enough collective mind to understand this)
Have a great day;)
Guess FR is getting busy
;-)
Welcome
...democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Madison, Number 10
...in a democracy the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents. A democracy, consequently, must be confined to a small spot. A republic may be extended over a large region. Madison, Number 14
It had been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience had proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity. Alexander Hamilton
Sounds like disdain to me! (if they were "the same thing" Madison wouldn't be using completely different words in #14) How can these people be so ignorant and get statements like this published? Who edits this balderdash?
Yet another writer who has no idea what he's saying and still expects people to listen to his "words of wisdom".
Time for brandy & a cigar.
Be back later;)
Heh ;-)
bttt - a republic if you can keep it
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.