11-02-2004, 11:50 PM
Hi all. I just spent a couple hours waiting to cast my votes in the great "battleground" of Columbus, OH, and when I got home my internet connection had finally been fixed after some weeks of problems.
Anyways, here are some thoughts about the Electoral College. First, many feel that this system gives disproportional voting power to less populace states over the more populous ones. In theory, that is true. But in reality, the disproportionate power in this system goes to relatively large states that are politically moderate. This is why Bush made a stop here in Columbus today to thank his volunteers at the phone banks; a difference of 1% either way in Ohio can make a swing of 4% in the electoral vote for the entire nation.
If this were a national race, it would change the way candidates campaign and the people they pander to. Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing probably depends on where you live and what you believe. Being a country boy, the last thing I would want to see is a candidate spending the entire last week of a campaign in NYC and L.A. trying to get his vote out. I'm not sure I would want to see is candidates who spend all of their time and money in states where they are popular trying to get people into the polls.
In any case, the biggest pragmatic advantage of the Electoral College right now is that it splits the election into manageable contests. It is becoming clear that 48-48 type elections are not only possible but quite likely in this country. If you have a national election that is too close to call, do you recount the entire country, with different polling laws and mechanisms in every state? The United States does not currently have an interstate election for *anything*, and an awful lot of election reform and national standardization would need to be done before we can even consider starting, in my opinion.
Anyways, here are some thoughts about the Electoral College. First, many feel that this system gives disproportional voting power to less populace states over the more populous ones. In theory, that is true. But in reality, the disproportionate power in this system goes to relatively large states that are politically moderate. This is why Bush made a stop here in Columbus today to thank his volunteers at the phone banks; a difference of 1% either way in Ohio can make a swing of 4% in the electoral vote for the entire nation.
If this were a national race, it would change the way candidates campaign and the people they pander to. Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing probably depends on where you live and what you believe. Being a country boy, the last thing I would want to see is a candidate spending the entire last week of a campaign in NYC and L.A. trying to get his vote out. I'm not sure I would want to see is candidates who spend all of their time and money in states where they are popular trying to get people into the polls.
In any case, the biggest pragmatic advantage of the Electoral College right now is that it splits the election into manageable contests. It is becoming clear that 48-48 type elections are not only possible but quite likely in this country. If you have a national election that is too close to call, do you recount the entire country, with different polling laws and mechanisms in every state? The United States does not currently have an interstate election for *anything*, and an awful lot of election reform and national standardization would need to be done before we can even consider starting, in my opinion.