Has the Electoral College Become Obsolete?

In 2000 Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the Presidential election. Since then many have said that the Electoral College system was the problem. Most States (48) have a winner-take-all system of awarding the Electoral votes for their States in national elections. Nebraska and Maine do not follow the winner-takes-all rule. In those States, there can be a split of electoral votes among candidates through the State's system for proportional allocation of votes. The NARA (National Archives and Records Administration) website explains their system of proportional voting like this:

“For example, Maine has four electoral votes and two Congressional districts. It awards one electoral vote per Congressional district and two by the state-wide, "at-large" vote. It is possible for Candidate A to win the first district and receive one electoral vote, Candidate B to win the second district and receive one electoral vote, and Candidate C, who finished a close second in both the first and second districts, to win the two at-large electoral votes. Although this is a possible scenario, it has not actually occurred in recent elections.”

In California, Republicans are currently trying to qualify an initiative for the ballot to convert California to a proportional voting State in order to split the electoral votes in the richest prize in the national election. With over 10% of the nation’s Electoral votes, California can either make or break an election. While some would argue that this would make the election fairer, they fail to point out that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are pushing for ballot measures in all 48 States that follow the winner-take-all method to change their policy. California is being targeted because it has historically voted Democrat and by changing the system in California alone the Republicans could win a virtually permanent advantage in the Electoral College. The likely resulting shift of 22 Electoral votes would be the equivalent of giving the Republicans an additional Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wyoming. Splitting the Electoral votes in only California without splitting the other States would give them the equivalent to a seven State bump in Electoral votes.

So what is the solution? Do we continue to allow national elections to take place where the winner loses or should we ask all 50 States to decide if they want to abandon winner-take-all or something in between? It seems the logical answer is that, in the interest of fairness, it should be all or nothing with changing the Electoral College system. If you pick and choose which States change then you are giving an unfair advantage to one party over another based on the voting tendencies of the rest of the States who still use the winner-take-all system of allocating Electoral votes. On the flip side, if we went to a proportional system in all 50 States where votes were awarded based on Congressional Districts, Independent candidates would almost surely begin to have better showings in the national elections. This would lessen the stranglehold that the two major parties have on national politics and more than likely serve the American people more effectively.

For now there is not likely to be wholesale change in the Electoral College so voters have to be wary of any movements to manipulate the Electoral College by trying to change the system in only certain States. If either major political party is serious about changing the Electoral College system to better serve the American people they have the resources to push for ballot measures in all 48 States not currently using proportional allocation. To blame it on the lack of ability to have a single ballot petition for a national referendum on the matter is a deceptive argument meant to mislead the voters. Pushing for change in only Electoral vote rich States that have historically gone to their opponents is a transparent attempt to manipulate the outcome of national elections.

The Great Divides

Recently I wrote an article for the Reform America website about facing bigotry within my family. It was a hard article to write but it was important to share my experiences to help others to see the personal impact of generalizations made about others. Today, I want to explore the idea of artificial divisions a little more in depth.

Humans seem to have an innate need to categorize each other. We divide ourselves by skin color, sex, age, religion, culture, language, hair color and any number of other little differences we can find. Sometimes the divisions are seen as positives and sometimes they are portrayed as examples of superiority or inferiority. Viewing the differences as positive leads to embracing change and helping humanity move forward. It opens our minds to the possibility that our way of doing things might be improved by changing our perspective. Including others in the debate enriches the quality of the debate and brings a wealth of knowledge to the table.

In a more limited mindset comes the idea that diversity weakens a group by bringing in "outsiders" who don’t "belong" in the society. This mindset tries to rationalize the exclusion of others by lessening the value of the group being excluded. Stereotypes such as blondes being unintelligent or Asians being bad drivers paint an entire group in one light so as to lessen its worth overall. Those who perpetrate such actions and promote such ideas may be overcompensating for a lack of self-esteem or they may just be parroting the things they have heard from others over the course of their lives. The problem in their actions is that the actions not only hurt those being targeted for derision, they also weaken the society overall by creating class divisions based on errant assumptions.

America is one of the best examples of arbitrary divisions causing stratified classes. In our nation, Caucasians dominate the society. Pretty much all other ethnicities are lower on the social ladder. Since its inception, the United States has been a country dominated by European peoples and cultures. In the early days of America, British culture reigned supreme. Most of the leaders of the early colonies were backed by the British monarchy and they led from the perspective of their culture being the model for all society. The only ethnic diversity in the early colonies was between the white Europeans and the Native Americans. The early colonists referred to the Native Americans as "savages" and disregarded their culture as being backward and primitive. While they had no problem assimilating their more efficient hunting and farming techniques and later would learn what was to become the basis for modern warfare from them, they still viewed them as lesser and treated their trust of the settlers as something to be taken advantage of. In doing so, many aspects of a great and proud culture were lost to the world for all time. As holistic medicine is becoming more popular and traditional science begins to embrace the ideas of it, we are beginning to see some of what we may have lost in killing much of the culture that used the same herbs and roots centuries before Westerners even knew of their existence.

Later in American history came the advent of slavery and the wholesale subjugation of an entire ethnic group for centuries. Once again Caucasians created a lower class of human being by dividing people based on an arbitrary division. To this day we suffer as a society for that action. African Americans are still viewed by many as being lesser to other ethnicities despite innumerable contributions to the world and America. Without the work of George Washington Carver, American agriculture would likely have died a slow death and we would not have become the world leader in that area that we are today. Because of his discoveries regarding crop rotation and soil replenishment we have farms able to produce more crops using less fertilizers with less demineralization of our soils than would occur without the more scientific approach to farming. Leaders such as Martin Luther King Jr. have added to the richness of our nation and given the world more respect for the American principles of freedom and justice.

While these are some examples of the divisions we have placed on ourselves, there are countless others. So why do we do this to ourselves? Why do we feel the need to generalize superiority and inferiority based on what are in reality basically insignificant differences between us? It seems to me, for many it is a case of needing to feel significant. When one has not accomplished anything of note in their life, they want to feel like they have something that makes them better anyway. People seem to need to feel "special" and "important" when the truth is that most of us are not "special" or "important" in the grand scheme of things. Most of us are simply cogs in the machine of humanity and many of us are the insignificant cogs that merely spin and don’t really do much. That’s not to say that we can’t become more relevant. We can find ways to make society better or find some change to a process that makes life easier for others.

The thing is, we can’t make ourselves more relevant without effort. We can’t simply berate others to make ourselves more important. No matter how much you talk about someone else being less than you, it will not make you more. You are still the same person you were before you began to talk. Even if some stereotypes have some basis in fact, they are not true of all people that they are referring to and to use them as a basis for opinion of an entire group only serves to show that you are ignorant and don’t actually know about the entire group.

Probably the most insidious way in which we divide ourselves is through the use of epithets. People use them in every day conversation and with each use, the group being described is a little more solidified in our society as being lesser in the perceptions of others. Perhaps the most widely used and most harmful is the word "nigger" or "nigga". This word in its various forms has been used for about four hundred years to describe people of African descent. This word connotes ignorance, stupidity, dangerousness, lack of refinement and a general idea of not belonging in "proper" society. The connotations that the word brings are by no means accurate to the whole body of people of African descent. I noted two prominent examples of Americans that completely defied the stereotypes that come with the word. So why do people use it? I would posit that people who have no sense of real self-worth largely drive its continued usage. These people use it to either denigrate others in an attempt to gain self-worth or to add identity to themselves when the color of their skin is all that they have to distinguish themselves from others.

Sadly the aforementioned epithet is by no means the only one used in our society. We have epithets for everything from women to homosexuals to people of every skin color known to man. We denigrate based on religion, age, education level, etc. with no regard to the overall accuracy of our generalizations. The thing that should be stressed is that no matter how many ways we find to insult others, it does not make us any better. We cannot improve our own worth by lessening others.

I have heard some argue that we will never get past the use of such words as an excuse to continue using them. To those people I say that they are lying to themselves. The words of hate can be stifled and put into the garbage cans they belong in if we stop just accepting that they are used. If you hear people use the words, call them on it and make a commitment to yourself to not use the words. There are plenty of non-hateful descriptive words to use. If you noticed during this piece I didn’t talk about different races because we are only one race. We are the human race. There is no need to damage others in order to talk about them. People like Don Imus should be made irrelevant in our daily lives unless they stop using the language of division. We do have a choice and to say otherwise is to say that you have no control over your own actions. Unless you are mentally disabled, that is a lie that you should neither tell nor believe.

Chicken Hawks

When I first started this article it was going to be a comparison between Toby Keith and Pat Tillman. I had gone so far as posting the draft on my blog and on another site to see what kind of reaction it would get. The responses I got were pretty nasty and accused me of not doing my homework.

One of the nice things about being an independent writer in this type of forum is that you have the ability to go back and address things you got wrong. In using somewhat biased sources to gain my information and not thoroughly checking quotes I started with a flawed premise and when you start on a shaky foundation, the house becomes pretty weak. While Mr. Keith has not served in the military and has been a vocal supporter of the troops, he has not been as vocal a supporter of the Iraq war. He states publicly that he supported the Afghanistan invasion and still does but was not a supporter or opponent of the Iraq war and supports the troops more so than the conflict. So in hindsight, I have to thank my detractors for forcing me to dig deeper on this one. In digging deeper, I found that I still don’t like much of what Toby Keith has to say but I can’t jab at him too hard on Iraq.

That being said, I will take another shot at the hypocrisy of war promotion by "chicken hawks". To get the ball rolling I’d like to share a quote with you from one of the top dogs in the chicken hawk ranks.

"If we have to, we just mow the whole place down, see what happens. You're dealing with insane suicide bombers who are killing our people, and we need to be very aggressive in taking them out." – Trent Lott

Trent Lott has never seen active combat or served in the military.

The race for the White House often brings out the warriors in our politicians. Here is an excerpt from a campaign speech given during this campaign season on war and using war to keep the peace.

"The way you achieve peace, in a world in which there are people that hate you, and people who are maniacally opposed to you as many of the Islamic terrorists are is, the only way you do it is through strength, not weakness. Weakness prolongs struggles like this." – Rudy Giuliani

Rudy Giuliani has never seen active combat or served in the military.

The brave men and women who serve in our armed forces should be afforded all the respect and honor due to them for their bravery. When it comes time to talk of war these should be the people we listen to the most intently as they have some real perspective on war. They have faced it first hand. The chicken hawks that would send people to die in their stead should not be our primary guides.

It is interesting to look at the makeup of the most ardent supporters and detractors from a war. Below are some interesting proponents and opponents of the Iraq war.

Those who talk tough but never served:

Former Governor Mitt Romney
Former Senator Fred Thompson
Vice President Dick Cheney
Republican Strategist Karl Rove
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich
Senator Joe Lieberman
Rush Limbaugh
Michael Savage
Sean Hannity
Bill O'Reilly

And a few anti-war advocates that DID serve in the military:

Former Vice President Al Gore
Senator John Kerry
Former Senator Mike Gravel
Representative Ron Paul
Senator Christopher Dodd
Representative Jack Murtha
Senator Ted Kennedy
Former President Jimmy Carter (His time of service at seven years in the Navy is second only to Dwight Eisenhower among US Presidents in the 20th Century.)
James Carville

It is interesting to see the marked division in party affiliation. While not a perfect split it is a fairly lopsided equation. Of the nine Senators in the U.S. Senate that have seen active combat six are Democrats and three Republicans. This is not a judgement about the Republicans it is simply interesting to note. It does lend the appearance that those who wave the flag the hardest are the least willing to part with their lives to defend it.

So the real question becomes, who are the real patriots? Are they the ones who talk a good game but wimp out on the actual fighting or are they the ones who put their lives on the line before they talk about the value of peace and avoiding senseless wars?

For the pundits, talking heads, loudmouths, and others who use their mouths to show their "patriotism" I have this to say. If you want to call people cowards and traitors for being against the war then you darn well better man-up, put your money where your mouth is and join up. Otherwise, you really should just shut up.

At least those who are against the war who have not served in the military are being consistent. They are being pro-peace across the board. Those who have served and call for peace have earned the right to speak out without fear of reproach by risking their lives for their country. Conversely those who have served who call for war have every right to be heard. The wimps that call others cowards for opposing killing and dying in their name who don't have the guts themselves to fight for their country really don't have any ground to stand on.