Dear Lloyd,
Thank you for such a terrific explanation.
It certainly fills out the picture as to why and how, and
underlines the serious reasons for considering bringing
it into the 21st century. All the same, it offers excellent
reasons for voters to maintain the noble values of their
founding fathers by participating in the process.
Of course the following is out of date because each person
can now be asked to state their preference chosen from many.
>1 When the US was founded most of the country was a wilderness.
>Communication was slow at best. It was unlikely that voters in major
>portions of the country would even be aware of the candidates. The members
>of the electoral college in their state would represent the results of
>their vote.
While in the next, the means of electing the President is apparently given
obsessive attention, particularly in ensuring that the power remains OUT
of the hands of the ordinary people and overshadows the importance
of the policy of the individual house members.
>2 As in all matters of setting up the government the sharing of power was
>a primary consideration. It was for this reason that each state had equal
>representation in the Senate (2 Senators per state) and representation
>based on population in the House. This pattern was also followed in the
>number of electoral college votes that were allowed in the Presidential
>election (one for each Senator from a state, and one for each member of the
>House in a state).
While I like this above based on population, just as in Australia, doesn't
what follows give smaller states unwarranted power over populations
of the larger states in order to manipulate the union?
(Perhaps we can view this as a gesture towards de-centralisation!)
>The effect of this system is to give smaller states a
>larger representation per capita. It also is more likely to insure that
>the candidates running for President will campaign in even the smallest
>states which might not be the case with a purely popular vote.
Over-ridden by television of course with this modern twist.
(Couldn't believe Dan Rather calling for simultaneous poll closing
in preference to delaying the East coast results or media restrictions,
while the West coast vote continues.)
Of course I don't agree with the simple popular vote because it
sustains the two party system to the disadvantage of better
candidates.
Under the popular vote if we had four candidates
one of whom got the largest with 30% of the primary vote, she
would win.
But if the second choice of the voters gave 51%
to another, it seems clear to me that for the will of the people to
prevail, the second choice should succeed on the grounds
that of all the candidates prepared to stand for service to the
public, this was person the majority found most worthy.
Large parties and the power hungry don't like
this system because it puts too much of the power in the
hands of the people. But that's real democracy.
>3. Many of the founding fathers were suspicious of the passions of the
>uneducated. It was for this reason that public school education was
>eventually required in all states and this was also part of the reason that
>the founding fathers created the electoral college system of voting for the
>Presidency
Yet, as you say, in spite of the good intentions of the
founding fathers, the result was to centralise power in the
hands of a few, to the detriment of the general population,
a situation that is now being portrayed as democratic,
when it is not.
Finally, I note that if the Electoral College does not
come up with a clear majority for President, than it goes
into the hands of the house of Reps who choose the
President from the top three of the EC voting.
It would appear to me that based on those decisions
of the founding fathers, an evenly split primary vote
should trigger the same result, with a window of dither to
allow for defective counting and a precise indication to the
Electoral College that their services are not needed in the
current situation.
I'm sure the world will be watching to see just how
the present day upholders of democracy grapple with
this need to improve its tarnished image.
We wish you Wisdom! Reg.
|
