I have many current thoughts to spill here, but I'd also like to run some repeats of a small number of entries I wrote in a previous blog.
This first one is some research I did - just to satisfy my own curiosity - on the inequalities of the electoral college system by which our voting public chooses our president and vice-president... or doesn't. Just how much is your vote worth, compared to that of someone else in another state? The worst example is that of Wyoming and Florida: a vote in the former state is worth four times as much as that of a Floridian, in terms of their representation by certain numbers of electors.
Even disregarding the fraud of the 2000 election, Al Gore received more individuals' votes than Bush; yet of course, he lost on account of - besides fraud and numerous unethical practices - our unfair electoral system. And thus, as a result, our country has suffered, and the poor people of Iraq have suffered far more... but that's for a different discussion (read: rant).
One might say that the earliest example of an electoral college was the College of Cardinals (responsible for electing a new pope) in the year 1059, which still survives to this day, but I'm not quite sure as to whom they're representing. In the late Middle Ages (16th century), a college of "prince-electors" became the ones to select an emperor for the Holy Roman Empire. Our system has been in place since the ratification of the Constitution in 1788, though it has been amended on two occasions: in 1804, the 12th amendment was passed, but it isn't quite relevant to this analysis; and in 1978, the District of Columbia was granted representation in the electoral college system.
A good itemization of the pros and cons of this system can be found at trusty
Wikipedia; here's an excerpt:
The Electoral College is intended to dilute the votes of population centers that may have different concerns from the majority of the country. The system is designed to require presidential candidates to appeal to many different types of interests, rather than those of a specific region or state.
...
Supporters of direct election argue that it would give everyone an equally weighted vote, regardless of what state they live in, and oppose giving disproportionately amplified voting power to voters in states with small populations.
...
Essentially, the Electoral College ensures that candidates, particularly in recent elections, pay attention to key 'swing-states' (those states that are not firmly rooted in either the Republican or Democratic party). It equally assures that voters in states that are not believed to be competitive will be disregarded.
This last paragraph describes a theory, but expresses it in a somewhat opinionated manner. I think that the last sentence in particular is completely false. I live in Massachusetts, a hardcore blue state; if I was interested in voting Republican (ha!), I might as well not vote at all in the presidential election. Since the Democratic candidate will always handily take Massachusetts, the votes for a Republican candidate are useless, and count for nothing.
In 2000, I actually voted for Ralph Nader, because in the case of "third parties," winning 5% of the votes in the general count qualifies them for federal funding in the next election. I didn't want Nader to win, but I wanted the Green Party (or any lefty third party) to become empowered (dream on!). Were we to have a general election in which all votes were counted equally, I would certainly have voted for Gore, and helped to save countless lives, etc.... Sorry, I really can't stop myself. What, me bitter?
I think that the electoral college system made good sense back when it was introduced, and in recent years has become increasingly counter-productive. One main factor in this is the great advancements of technology: candidates now have the abilities to travel great distances quickly and easily, and to reach voters everywhere via mass media. This greatly reduces the need for our obsolete system, and instead has created inequities in the value of our individual votes.
And now for the data, so you can see these inequities for yourself. I compiled this information in 2004, and so used census information from they year 2000, in which the travesty of injustice occurred. I remember calling in to Al Franken's show on Air America (liberal talk radio) at the time when they were discussing the upcoming election and the fear of fraud (often centering on the Diebold machines). He believed that Congress would make great progress in passing legislation to prevent foul play, and I of course disagreed with him. In your face, Franken!
Inequality of Votes in Presidential Elections Under the Electoral College System
