The Democratic National Party platform does not mirror my views exactly. I'm more liberal than the Democrats. Who among us is a perfect Democrat or for that matter Republican? In this country, we have a two-party system for better or worse, which means two big tents where everyone must gather. And I say "must" gather, because I'd like to see anybody win an election running on the Libertarian, Socialist or Green ticket. Lots of luck.
What I would prefer is the abolishment of the Electoral College and the implementation of a multi-party system similar to that in Canada where minority parties get to share power on the national level. That would mean, of course, that McCain would have a presence in the executive branch today. Do I hear any Republican readers cheering? On the other hand, that also means that the losers of the 2000 and 2004 elections would have had a role in the executive branch, as well. Without the Electoral College, the winner and the loser in 2000 would have been reversed.
I am sure that Republicans will agree that the winner-takes-all system of today leaves a bitter taste in the mouth of the losers. Just imagine how we Democrats felt in 2000 and 2004.
Under such a system as Canada's, I'd probably join a minority party, one that is even more progressive than the Democrats, who are quite conservative on a number of issues. Pragmatism dictates that we gather together, regardless of our differences. We have to unite under a big tent. Otherwise our views won't be represented at all. This is the same situation that many conservatives find themselves in. They have to hold their nose and join the Republicans, because otherwise they're out of luck. At least one Republican has told me that the only issue he agrees with Republicans about is abortion, which he wants to ban.
I don't place DNP logos on the main page of my blog, because my blog does not accurately represent the DNP. This blog just represents my own views. Another Democrat may or may not agree with any of the positions I have staked out. However, I can say this. The DNP is the tent where I've found the most like-minded souls--intelligent, informed, patriotic citizens interested in the welfare of their country. When someone tells me they are a Democrat, we have more in common than would otherwise be the case.
The trend in pop culture to deride all politicians and turn one's back on the entire system is a mistake. That strategy cedes power to those who will do harm. If you think the system is corrupt, reform it! That's the only answer. Find politicians you can believe in.
I remember when George Carlin, my favorite comedian, advised an entire audience not to vote. I winced when he said that. What a terrible thing to say! Don't vote?! What kind of advice is that? Guess who will vote? The people who disagree with everything you believe in, that's who. You're handing a blank check to the fascists if you don't vote. Sure, the system is flawed. What system isn't? Sure, there are plenty of bad apples in politics. Don't vote? What do you want, a monarchy? A dictatorship? If we don't vote, then what did our ancestors die for in the Revolution?
Whatever party you support and whatever your beliefs may be, vote. In every election, not just every four years. At the very least, you are sending a strong signal to the powers that be that the people are paying attention, and they had better watch their grammar. If more people vote, it becomes more expensive to buy an election. Corruption is reduced. That's all to the good, unless you're a business criminal, in which case you probably won't be reading a blog like this one.
2 comments:
The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided "battleground" states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 "battleground" states. Similarly, in 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states and over 99% of their money in 16 states.
Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections. 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 enacted by 48 states, under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.
Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections.
In the past six decades, there have been six presidential elections in which a shift of a relatively small number of votes in one or two states would have elected (and, of course, in 2000, did elect) a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.
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 Constitution gives every state the power to allocate its electoral votes for president, as well as to change state law on how those votes are awarded.
The bill is currently endorsed by 1,246 state legislators -- 460 sponsors (in 48 states) and an additional 786 legislators who have cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. This national result is similar to recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado-- 68%, Iowa --75%, Michigan-- 73%, Missouri-- 70%, New Hampshire-- 69%, Nevada-- 72%, New Mexico-- 76%, North Carolina-- 74%, Ohio-- 70%, Pennsylvania -- 78%, Virginia -- 74%, and Wisconsin -- 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Delaware --75%, Maine -- 71%, Nebraska -- 74%, New Hampshire --69%, Nevada -- 72%, New Mexico -- 76%, Rhode Island -- 74%, and Vermont -- 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas --80%, Kentucky -- 80%, Mississippi --77%, Missouri -- 70%, North Carolina -- 74%, and Virginia -- 74%; and in other states polled: California -- 70%, Connecticut -- 73% , Massachusetts -- 73%, New York -- 79%, and Washington -- 77%.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 25 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Maine, Michigan, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, and Washington, and both houses in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes -- 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
Post a Comment