Hello Reg and Fellow Vocalisters:
I am not sure this is a proper topic for the Vocalist discussion group. But
I do feel that what is happening in the US is of interest to the world and
that it is not the crises that it appear to be.
Perhaps I was unclear in my earlier discussion of this issue. The members
of the electoral college in each state are selected by their party; one
electoral college group for the Democrats, one electoral college group for
the Republican, one electoral college group for any party that is on the
ballot in any state. There is no limit to how many parties may be listed
on the ballot if they can prove that they represent a minimum sized group
within each state.
In this last Presidential election, the Arizona ballot had Presidential
candidates listed for the Democrats, Republicans, Green Party, and
Libertarian Party. The members of the electoral college that represented
each of these parties were also listed on the ballot as a bit of
information for the voter but you only voted for the Presidential candidate
in that part of the ballot.
The process of requiring a candidate to win a state in order to obtain the
electoral college votes for that state has a real advantage for the
citizens regardless of the historical reasons for the decision to create
the electoral college system. Small states are always at a disadvantage in
making their desires known within the national scene. Yet the United
States is just that, a _uniting_ of individual states each of which has its
own states rights. Our civil war was a war about these states rights. The
issue of slavery was the cause the brought this issue of states rights into
open conflict.
Without the electoral college system of electing a President, I do not
believe that the small states would ever see nor have the opportunity to
meet the Presidential candidates because they would be wisely courting the
states with the largest population who would have the strongest effect on
the popular vote. In the electoral college system the will of the people
of each state is better represented than it would be in a popular vote
system. In other words, a popular vote system would negate yet another of
the states rights and this is not a procedure that is taken lightly by the
voters in each state.
You are correct when you state that many of the original reasons for the
creation of the electoral college system are no longer valid. But you make
a mistake when you suggest that the electoral college system creates the
two party system.
If anything creates the two party system it is the form of government we
have which is completely different from the parliamentary system you know
best. In the parliamentary system a government is created by a coalition
of parties who agree on the Prime Minister who shall represent them and the
government stands as long as this coalition remains. But each of the
parties in the coalition has to compromise in order to become a part of the
ruling coalition that forms the parliamentary government.
In our system, each party must represent many viewpoints. No party with a
single point of view can survive in our climate. Witness the lack of
success of the Green Party. This simply means that each party with a
single message must find a place for itself within one of the larger
parties. To do this, individual smaller parties must compromise in order
to become a part of the larger party which, in turn, becomes a party that
represents a broad spectrum of ideas and needs.
But nothing says that only two parties can exist; a third party could
survive if it represented a broad enough spectrum of individual interests.
This has happened a few times in the past. The creation of the present
Republican party is one example of a third party that was successful with
the election of Abraham Lincoln.
In each system, parliamentary or the US system, the individual parties must
compromise. The time of this compromise is different but that is all. In
the US system the compromise is early, before the major elections. In the
parliamentary system the compromise is late, after the major elections but
a compromise is still necessary if a government is to be formed.
Our system evolved for reasons that were necessary in our beginnings. We
have found it is useful and that it works and, though we have the means to
change the system through amendments to our constitution, we have not found
such changes necessary.
Your system also evolved for reasons that were necessary and that evolution
was over a much longer time period. I am not aware that you have a device
such as an amendment to a constitution to change your system but I am sure
you do.
In any case, there is no governing crisis in the United States over the
difficulties of settling the Presidential election. Nor should we consider
our difficulties with any degree of shame. We have developed a governing
system that works for us. It is one form of Democracy because it does
represent the will of the voters through its various checks and balances.
Even government "deadlock" in which the House and the Senate and the
President cannot agree enough to make forward progress is not considered a
crises but rather a living example of the checks and balances that are the
heart of our process.
I fear far more the danger of having both houses of Congress and the
President all under the control of one party. This tends to remove the
checks and balances that require careful consideration and rational debate.
Regards
--
Lloyd W. Hanson, DMA
Professor of Voice, Vocal Pedagogy
School of Performing Arts
Northern Arizona University
Flagstaff, AZ 86011
|
