Ivan's Blog |
|
Featuring Ivan Trembow's Self-Important, Random Rants on Mixed Martial Arts, Video Games, Pro Wrestling, Television, Politics, Sports, and High-Quality Wool Socks Ivan's Blog Main Page Archives September 2002 November 2002 February 2003 March 2003 April 2003 June 2003 October 2003 August 2004 October 2004 November 2004 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 October 2007 December 2007 January 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009 February 2009 April 2009 May 2009 June 2009 July 2009 August 2009 September 2009 October 2009 November 2009 December 2009 January 2010 February 2010 March 2010 April 2010 May 2010 June 2010 July 2010 August 2010 September 2010 |
Tuesday, November 02, 2004
Politics--- I would like to take a moment to discuss the importance of the electoral college. Contrary to the views of many pundits who do not understand it, the electoral college is vital to having "fair" elections. If it weren't for the electoral college, the candidates could focus their entire campaigns on eight or nine heavily populated states that hold more than half of America's population, and completely ignore the other 40+ states. The founding fathers of this country created the electoral college for that very reason--- so that candidates couldn't just go into heavily-populated areas and "buy votes" by exclusively catering to those areas. Even as it is with the electoral college, it is heavily weighted with the more heavily populated states getting a lot more electoral votes (California's 55 electoral votes are more than double the amount of any other state). People who do not understand the importance of the electoral college also justify their positions by saying, "The candidates are spending all of their time in ten states anyway!" That is true, but it is also missing the entire point. With a nationwide popular vote instead of the electoral college, candidates could focus exclusively on the eight or nine most heavily-populated states in the country, and they could focus on those same states every single election. With the electoral college, the candidates have to appease all 50 states but spend most of their final campaigning time in 10-15 "swing states." This is the way it has always been and is perfectly fair because what constitutes a "swing state" has nothing to do with a state's population... instead, the swing states are the states where the polls are the closest, the states where the citizens are the most divided on who they should vote for, and therefore the states where the candidates' visits and words are all the more important in helping the public make up its collective mind. Also, as states become increasingly more conservative or liberal over time, the list of swing states is always going to be different in any given election. A swing state this year might not be a swing state in 2008 if the public sways strongly in the direction of one party or the other, and there are plenty of non-swing states this year that could very well be swing states in 2008 (including my state of Maryland). It's a reality of politics that 10-15 states are going to get most of the candidates' attention in the final weeks of a presidential campaign. Doesn't it make more sense for those states to be largely different in every election and determined by which states are the most closely contested, rather than the same in every election and determined solely by which states are the most heavily populated? Labels: Politics / Current Events Commentary Send your feedback, questions, or hate mail to ivan@ivansblog.com If you're looking for all of the content from my other site, Master Gamer, you can find it here. |