Letter to the Editor
Electoral nonsense
Published Friday, November 7, 2008
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!Nov. 5, 2008
To the editor:
Why is it that I watched Obama’s victory speech 30 minutes before our polls closed? Did we give up? Or do our votes not count? Why did I waste my gas? The Electoral College needs to be abolished. If I was president, I would do away with that nonsense. Only popular votes count! It’s a scam otherwise. We didn’t vote for anything.
Clipper Ordiway
Fairbanks
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
they would have still told you who won the popular vote before the polls closed. they'll go as far as waiting until the west coast polls close before declaring winners. or at least they used. not sure about that now. but they don't wait for the polls in hawaii or alaska to close.
The electoral college is a U.S. Constitutional construct. It comes about as a result of Article 2 and the 12th Amendment. Be careful what you wish for. The electoral college is in place the same reason every state, no matter what the population, gets 2 Senators. It's there to protect the minority view against a tyrannical majority. People often mistake our nation's founding principles on the "majority rule" notion. Yes, that was part of it. The other part was making sure the minority view point didn't get trampled in the process. That is why every state gets 2 senators and that is why we have an electoral college. It should remain in place. At different times in our nation's history is has and will protect both democrats and republicans. It is a vital tool to ensure those not in the absolute majority still have a voice.
...and by the way, because it is a Constitutional construct, the President can not do away with it. The Constitution would have to be amended, which involves passing the legislation through Congressional supermajorities, then sending it to every state legislature for ratification.
GOPKing is right on this one. Alaskans should want the electoral college to continue because it give it and other smaller states a disproportionate influence on elections. It has three votes for President, as it gets one for each senator, plus one for its House member. California, with two senators, has 53 more congressmen. So its per capita votes are in effect worth much less than are Alaska's. This goes for the other late-voting state, Hawai'i as well, as it has four votes in the electoral college. Wyoming and a few other states with a smaller population than Alaska have an even greater, however slight, effect on the college vote distribution.
Here's another way to look at it. Without the electoral college's provision for both Senators "earning" a vote, California would have about 700,000 people per vote in the College. But the current method for tabulating delegates, if it were instead solely proportional to population, would mean that Alaska would only get a single vote instead of three in the Electoral College. California would get about 53 delegates anyway.
I want to add that even though the Presidential election was called before Alaska's polls closed, we had some very important Senate and House races going on which I feel were equally important to vote in. They only way your vote doesn't count is if you don't vote.
The reality is that Alaska's three electoral votes don't make much of a difference unless the election is extremely close, and the same is true of other small states (e.g. Hawaii, Vermont). The announcement that Obama won the election was announced after the west coast election booths closed and Obama has accrued more than the 270 electoral votes needed to win. The problem here is not the electoral college, but the fact that our country spans 4 time zones.
Diogenes, Texas (703070 per electoral vote) has even less of an electoral vote per capita than California (664604), the worst representation in the whole country. An Alaskan's vote (227826) is worth over three times as much in the Electoral College as a Texan's. AKhusky, there are actually six U.S. time zones, four for the older 48, one for most of Alaska, and one shared between the western Aleutians and Hawaii.
For the first time in my life, I agree with GOPking. He's right.
It is hard to swallow, and it is troubling when we see who the president is already when we step out of the voting booth. Although you feel you missed out on that one, think of the good you did for our Alaskan ballots.
It would be different if we were all in the same time zone. HHmmmm, now there is a thought! I am only kidding!
Our votes do count and it may be a flawed system perceived, but it is ours, and many do not have the privilage. It works, just wait till you live in Chicago, you will see.
Does anybody else remember there were other important issues on the ballot, senate, congress, representatives and judges? No your vote for president didn't matter after about 7 (though knowing popular vote numbers is interesting), your vote certainly mattered for your state and local issues.
The ones that annoyed me were the predicted new counts in the house and senate that were posted on MSNBC a full 6 hours before our polls closed. We STILL don't know the results for Young and Stevens but apparently the media knows more than we do.
I didn't go to the polls to vote for president - already knew who was going to win. I went to vote for our state election.
You do have a point with the electoral college - it is very outdated. In our time it does not accuratly represent the American people. I would rather a vote = a vote.
"You do have a point with the electoral college - it is very outdated. In our time it does not accuratly represent the American people. I would rather a vote = a vote."
And then people in unpopulated states would really have no voice.
I agree with gopking. Also, remember that this nation is constructed as a union of states. Thus, it makes sense for elections to be conducted at the state rather than national level.
Diogenes, I saw you make the same arguement in another article. While you may be accurate on the number of popular votes per electoral vote, you are missing the big picture.
We still only get 3 votes. Look at how many other states get. So in the big picture (despite the ratio you always bring up) Alaska is not important to the presidential race. The electoral college makes winning states more important than overall votes. Due to population variances, some states carry more electoral votes. There are 50 states, so you would think that a candidate would have to win 25+ states. This is not the case. All it takes is 14 states if you win the states that have 11+ electoral votes.
So, about 18 states have weight in a national election. The rest of us are tie breakers.
With the electoral college: Alaskans vote count for 0.0056% of the election.
Under popular vote: Alaskans would count for roughly 0.0021% of the election.
I would be glad to see Alaska and Hawaii's polls close with the west coast, if the people of the state voted it so. It would give less time to vote, but at least we would feel important when the votes are called~
yes, what gopking was talking about is basic stuff you learn in poli-sci 101 in college. also the electoral college and american democracy was created before the invention of the telephone or telegraph. each individual state results had to be taken to washington d.c. for national tabulation via horse. they didn't know the winners of the election for weeks afterwards.
akhusky also nailed it. our country spans 5 times zones and the election and reporting technology has just gotten too good.
George Bush did not win the majority in 2004.
So yes, I agree.
Only for 2004 though.
Go Kerry!
There are two primary reasons the Founders chose to select presidents via the electoral college instead of by direct, popular voting.
The first reason was their lack of trust in the judgment of the people.
They were fearful that a well-spoken but not well-intentioned individual could flatter the people and win their support. They hoped that a secondary body, such as the Electoral College, would not be susceptible to such attempts at manipulation.
This reason for the Electoral College is virtually meaningless with changes that have "bound" electors to cast their votes for the candidate who wins the majority of the popular vote in each state.
Unfortunately, these "bindings" don't work.
If a person looks closely at the popular vote and the Electoral College vote from each state, there is no direct correlation between popular and Electoral votes cast.
Imagine that presidential elections were not decided state-by-state, but rather by a nationwide popular vote. The significance of states and the candidates' competition for support in key, "swing" states would disappear.
Candidates would be inclined, if not forced, to run nationwide ad campaigns and visit large population centers.
This is why the Electoral College at minimum should be examined.
As it is now the Electorals don't vote according to popular vote in their state, and the candidates only campaign in key, swing states.
It was McCain who gave his speech 30 minutes before our polls closed. Obama waited until exactly 8:00 PM to give his speech. Fact. Checked. Check Mate.
I don't care for how the media does things either.
It's kind of like walking out of a bar in Fairbanks at 2:00 am in June and having to squint because of the sun. Live with it.
ClearH2O, removing the Electoral College would not force a national campaign. It would limit the campaign even more than it is now. Since 1990, over half of the US population has lived in just twelve cities. If we relied on popular vote, the campaign would just concentrate on those cities and bypass most of the rest of us.
If we do anything to the Electoral College, I say that we all follow Nebraska's example. The winner of each Congressional district gets that electoral vote, and the statewide winner gets the two votes for the senatorial electoral votes. Granted, nothing would change for Alaska, but it would spread out the campaign and election process.
Rob,
I didn't say to remove it, but rather to look at the process and how the Electorals are supposed to be "bound" to follow what their constituents, we the people, are voting. :)
I scrolled down early this morning, hoping someone had given a Constitutional, historical argument for the Electoral College. Gopking did not disappoint. Nicely stated.
Allan-
Actually, there are closer to 700,000 people in Alaska. Almost 491,000 are registered to vote and only about 217,000 of them voted for President in this election.
If all those who voted (or even if all registered voters) had voted for McCain/Palin it WOULD have changed the popular vote. Even if you added in the number of votes throughout the rest of the U.S. yet to be counted at the time, it would not have changed the outcome, but those votes do affect the popular vote.
(I know how you like to get things right, so consider this helpful.)
Clear H2O--
"If a person looks closely at the popular vote and the Electoral College vote from each state, there is no direct correlation between popular and Electoral votes cast."
You're gonna have to explain that one a little better--- facts, figures, please.....
It would be nice if national elections took place over a weekend and the results were announced only after all the polls closed. Perhaps have the votes tallied on Monday? That way those in the west would not be discouraged from voting, thinking that the race had already been decided.
did you leave the other bubbles on your ballot blank, clipper? if you did then you're right, it was a waste of time for you to vote. but if you voted on our senators or representatives like most other people, your vote was important.
"Why is it that I watched Obama's victory speech 30 minutes before our polls closed?"
Because Obama had overwhelmingly won, that's why!
AR-
I was not arguing your point, just your facts and wording.
I will argue this, however: "Regardless, Alaska has never been (and never will be) a battleground state for presidential elections."
This is one of the reasons people call for the Electoral College to be abolished. In a case as close as the 2000 election, every state would be a potential battleground state. In those states that traditionally vote Republican (like Alaska), Democrats would have to work even harder for every single vote they could get. If the Electoral College was not in place for this election, perhaps Obama and McCain would have visited and campaigned in this state in an attempt to court as many voters as they could... instead of investing their time and money in "swing" states.
I like to thank the people in and out of service to make it possible for me to VOTE. Thanks to our TRoops
Nowadays you can vote early, I think up to 2 weeks. By doing that you wont have to face the disappointment of voting for someone you already know lost the election.
Imusuallyright,
Here you go.....
2004: An unknown elector, Minnesota
Elector for: Kerry (Democrat)
instead cast a ballot for Senator John Edwards
2000: Barbara Lett-Simm