Politics and Religion

It either has to be strengthened or abolished
zinaval 7 Reviews 1394 reads
posted


Doesn't it defeat the purpose of the Electoral College to have it tied strictly to the popular vote of the people in the states, also make it a winner-take-all system? It does protect the power of smaller states, but that's not it's major purpose, which was to protect the country from tyranny. You might as well just skip having the Electoral College completely, since these guys are just numbers on a slate-- scores in a game, really. Does anybody even know who they are and how they're chosen, and does it even matter now?  

I question its effectiveness to guard the country against tyranny. For one thing, a smaller body is more susceptible to coercion and bribery, especially today. On the other had, it might work if it's done right. I think Caucuses should be held in odd years with "delegates" choosing the Electors. The presidential Candidates would have debates-- to their electors.

If it's strengthened, you might even offer the body other chores: by calling conventions to advocate for a "reviewed veto" of some laws that haven't worked or have outlasted their usefulness and take them off the books by presidential signature. It gives them a necessary job, and some responsibility for the other 365 days.  

Jack Daniels2953 reads

Iowa Caucuses

Since 1972, the Iowa caucus has been the first major electoral event of the nominating process for President of the United States. It has served as an early indication of which candidates for President of the United States might win the nomination of their political party at that party's national convention. The next Iowa caucus will be held on January 3, 2008.

The History

The Iowa caucus is commonly recognized as the first step in the United States Presidential nomination process for both the Democrats and the Republicans. It came to national attention in 1972, with a series of articles in the New York Times on how non-primary states would choose their delegates for the national conventions. Democratic operative Norma S. Matthews, state co-chair of the George McGovern campaign, helped engineer the early January start for Iowa. McGovern finished second to Edmund Muskie in the first early Hawkeye state caucus, but the momentum was palpable for an ultimate Democratic nomination in 1972 for McGovern in Miami. Four years later, the Iowa Republican Party scheduled its party caucuses on the same date as the Democrats.

In 1976 an uncommitted slate received the most support, followed by former Governor of Georgia Jimmy Carter, who came in a distant second, but won the most votes of any actual candidate. With no dominant front runner at the time, Carter was able to use the publicity of his "win" to achieve victory in the New Hampshire primary, and then to win his party's nomination and eventually the Presidency. Since then, Presidential candidates have increased their focus on winning the Iowa caucus.

In 1980 Republicans began the tradition of holding a straw poll at their caucuses, giving the appearance of a primary election. George H. W. Bush campaigned extensively in Iowa, defeating Ronald Reagan, but ultimately failed to win the nomination.

While they have been a financial boon to the state, the political value of the Iowa caucuses has gone up and down over the years. In 1988, for example, the candidates who eventually won the nominations of both parties came in third in Iowa. In elections without a sitting President or Vice President, the Iowa winner has gone on to the nomination only about half the time.
When Iowa Senator Tom Harkin ran for the Democratic nomination none of the other Democratic candidates chose to compete in Iowa, which minimized its importance in the nomination process. President Bush was unopposed on the Republican side, and the media completely ignored the state.

While the Democrats have tried to preserve the position of Iowa and New Hampshire in their nominating schedules, the Republicans have not. Alaska and Hawaii generally have their caucuses before Iowa, and in 1988 the Hawaii victory of Pat Robertson and the 1996 Louisiana victory of Pat Buchanan over Senator Phil Gramm had a significant impact on the results in Iowa.
The caucuses are closely followed by the media and can be an important factor in determining who remains in the race and who drops out. However, the only non incumbent candidate to win their party's caucus and go on to win the general election was George W. Bush in 2000. Neither Reagan nor Clinton won prior to their first term. No incumbent President has run opposed in their own party's caucus since Jimmy Carter in 1980.
In the months leading up to the 2004 caucus, predictions showed candidates Dick Gephardt and Howard Dean neck-and-neck for first place, with John Kerry and John Edwards far behind them. Negative campaign ads attacking each other by the two front runners soured the voters on them, and a last minute decision by Kerry to put all his remaining money in Iowa swung voters towards him. Gephardt's presidential hopes were dashed and Dean's badly battered, as Kerry went on to become the second non-incumbent to win both Iowa and New Hampshire since Edmund Muskie in 1972.

The Process

The Iowa caucus operates very differently from the more common primary election used by most other states (see U.S. presidential primary). The caucus is generally defined as a "gathering of neighbors." Rather than going to polls and casting ballots, Iowans gather at a set location in each of Iowa's 1784 precincts. Typically, these meetings occur in schools, churches, or public libraries. The caucuses are held every two years, but the ones that receive national attention are the presidential preference caucuses held every four years. In addition to the voting, caucus attendees propose planks for their party's platform, select members of the county committees, and discuss issues important to their local organizations.

Unlike the first-in-the-nation New Hampshire primary, the Iowa caucus does not result directly in national delegates for each candidate. Instead, caucus-goers elect delegates to county conventions, who elect delegates to district and state conventions where the national convention delegates are selected.

The Republicans and Democrats each hold their own set of caucuses subject to their own particular rules that change from time to time. Participants in each party's caucuses must be registered with that party. Participants can change their registration at the caucus location.

Additionally, 17-year-olds can participate, as long as they will be 18 years old by the date of the general election. Observers are allowed to attend, as long as they do not become actively involved in the debate and voting process.

kerrakles2284 reads

Never quite understood the purpose of caucuses and electoral college.

Electoral college is beyond comprehension to me, one can majority vote (popular) and still loose based on electoral college. Other than wasting a lot of time and money which translates cronyism, doesn't seem to add whole lot of fairness to the democratic process.



RightwingUnderground1312 reads

Are you suggesting a national primary? What's next? Do away with the State and local party structure? Disolving State governments? County and local governments? No need for the Senate then, just one parliment.

Jack Daniels2050 reads

The Electoral College is an anachronism that was created when it was nearly impossible to count the popular vote, and it was to keep the privilege of voting in the hands of property owners.  With the electronic technology available today, the Electoral College serves no useful purpose.  As far as a national primary goes, it would be no different than the way it works now except all the primaries would be on the same day just like the general election. The states control the general election so where is the problem?  How would changing to process do away with the Senate?

... but it must be done over time, and not as a knee jerk reaction to the results of the last two elections.

The problem with electronic voting is clear, thanks to the controversies in Florida(2000) and Ohio (2004).

We are stuck between a rock and a hard place, and a new system must be devised and implemented. But how to do so without the undue influence of the special interests and high powered well funded lobbyists?

Election reform is a dead duck as long as those who stand to lose from election reform, are the ones selected to implement election reform. There will always be cronyism and gerrymandering (so to speak) as long as the puppeteers are pulling the strings.

That's MY take on it.
Peace Out and Happy New Year

Brother_Al_Sharpton2086 reads

thinks they can get an advantage out of it.

But I agree, it's bullshit.

It's also time for a national health care system.

RightwingUnderground2284 reads

Unless you are talking about the big side vs. the small side. The minimum of 3 votes per state will never be relinquished by the less populated states. It would take 3/4 of the states agreeing to the constitutional amendment.

I don't see Montana, Wyoming, etal. as puppeters.

RightwingUnderground1836 reads

It took longer, but it wasn't inaccurate. Besides that's not why the electoral college was created. Quick voting has nothing to do with it.

http://www.multied.com/elections/Electoralcollgewhy.html

A better argument for abolishing the EC would be to make note of the wide spread access to  varied and "quick" media sources, assuming that the "deciders" were WELL informed and deliberate.

As far as the primarys are concerned, if the idea that so few (Iowans or any state) garner so much power, then it is one possible endpoint of thought that popular and national voting should rule. Taken to it's extreme then you have a democracy and not our representative republic. But in steps, taking power away from the states could start with a national primary, then the electoral college, then the Senate....

-- Modified on 12/31/2007 4:01:27 PM


Doesn't it defeat the purpose of the Electoral College to have it tied strictly to the popular vote of the people in the states, also make it a winner-take-all system? It does protect the power of smaller states, but that's not it's major purpose, which was to protect the country from tyranny. You might as well just skip having the Electoral College completely, since these guys are just numbers on a slate-- scores in a game, really. Does anybody even know who they are and how they're chosen, and does it even matter now?  

I question its effectiveness to guard the country against tyranny. For one thing, a smaller body is more susceptible to coercion and bribery, especially today. On the other had, it might work if it's done right. I think Caucuses should be held in odd years with "delegates" choosing the Electors. The presidential Candidates would have debates-- to their electors.

If it's strengthened, you might even offer the body other chores: by calling conventions to advocate for a "reviewed veto" of some laws that haven't worked or have outlasted their usefulness and take them off the books by presidential signature. It gives them a necessary job, and some responsibility for the other 365 days.  

Register Now!