by Ben Lewis

Created on: May 18, 2008

Some Issues and Non-issues of the Electoral College

That the EC is obsolete : The nation and the world are very different now than when the founding fathers created the EC. That the FF were condescending toward the populous is obvious in their expressed concern that some of the voters weren't intelligent enough to be trusted with the vote. They considered others too ignorant and indeed many were illiterate as are a lot of adults these days, but perhaps the per capita rate was even higher then. It should be safe to assume that we Americans are better educated now than were the majority in the 1700s. As for how the collective national IQ compares then and nowI won't go there.

That communication and transportation were much slower and less developed in those times, no one would deny and those considerations also worried the FF. Yet they managed to wage wars and to develop industry and to push back the frontier, so what does the EC have to do with any of this nowadays?

We hear a lot about "big states" (more populated ones) and "swing states" those which by virtue of the dates of their primaries and their population as well as other factors such as collar color of its citizens (white/blue, etc.) may play a critical role in an election by increasing or diminishing momentum of campaigns. Proponents of the EC claim that it levels the playing field somewhat. I say, that is a prime example of what we should not do. Leave the "playing field" alone. In many cases we've seen the folly of tampering with natural resources, e.g. allowing topsoil to erode, so we should be at least as wise about tampering with human resources. People, the presidency is a national office. The President is expected to deal fairly with all citizens regardless of where they live and vote. So what difference does it make what state of the union one lives injust do your duty as a citizen and vote.

If one is concerned about development of certain industries or the harvesting of certain natural resources, then the more effective way to deal with that is through congress persons and local legislators. These can be far more effective by exerting influence directly within their congressional districts than a President can or should unless the issue becomes a national concern. There could be exceptions to that but it would probably be received by locals as infringement on states' rights.

What about the phenomenon of "faithless electors"? viz. the turncoat elector or one pledged to a candidate who then does not

• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next Page >>