Friday, July 17, 2009

Is the Electoral College necessary? Or is change dangerous?

In How To Win the Presidency Tara Ross writes about the National Popular Vote for the The Weekly Standard today. She predicts "devastating ramifications would follow any elimination of the Electoral College." The devastation seems to be the possibility of new parties, felons, that are allowed to vote, being equal to people that are not felons and litigation after elections.

First, new parties would not be too bad. But, I don't think new parties would emerge very quickly if we side-stepped the present electoral college process. The two BIG PARTIES have a very strong hold on the process in each state. The National Popular Vote change won't change that very quickly.

Second, felons should vote in all states.

Third, is litigation really a concern after Bush Gore, Franken Coleman and the others.

I agree with Ms. Ross that this plan needs to more detail as to handle disputes with states and how to handle the procedure for recounts. But the Electoral College is out dated.

She is correct that we should make changes to the process that create one national standard. Presidential elections should be national elections not 50 separate elections with 50 different sets of rules, but, that requires a constitutional amendment.

The subject Ms. Ross avoids in her essay is the shift in power that the "red states" (states with less people, generally) will feel if we change the current process. But as someone well known said, we are not "a collection of red states and blue states we have been and always will be the United States of America." Sphere: Related Content

No comments:

Add to Technorati Favorites