Tag: Electoral Reform

Why Not Keep The Electoral College?

I have been calling for an end to the electoral college for decades….I have even wrote a few posts about the fact……https://lobotero.com/2019/03/05/electoral-college-must-go/

In keeping with my policy of trying to give both sides of a debate…I have read something the president said about the electoral college (he is in favor after all that is what gave him the presidency)…….

President Trump has changed his mind on the importance of the Electoral College versus the popular vote, for reasons that may be connected to his winning the Electoral College and losing the popular vote in 2016. “I used to like the idea of the Popular Vote, but now realize the Electoral College is far better for the USA,” Trump tweeted Wednesday, explaining that campaigning for the popular vote is “much easier & different” to campaigning for the Electoral College. He said it was “like training for the 100 yard dash vs. a marathon.” Trump won with 304 Electoral College votes in 2016, compared to 227 for Hillary Clinton, who had nearly 3 million more total votes. He once called the Electoral College “a disaster to a democracy,” notes the Washington Post; his reversal comes as Democrats including Elizabeth Warren call for the Electoral College to be dismantled.


To win the popular vote, Trump said, candidates only need to visit “the large States – the Cities would end up running the Country. Smaller States & the entire Midwest would end up losing all power.” Clinton’s 2016 defeat, which was the fifth such loss in US history, has led to Democratic efforts both to bypass the college and to pay more attention to states like Wisconsin, which Trump won after Clinton failed to campaign there, the Hill reports. According to National Popular Vote, 17 Democratic-leaning states plan to sign a pact to award their Electoral College votes to the winner of the nationwide popular vote. (Read more electoral college stories.)

Instead of getting rid of this dinosaur….they will do what they always do…try to reform it…..that is the cowards way out of this debate.

Should We Rid Our Society Of The Electoral College?

The short answer for me is…..YES!

I was recently contacted about writing some articles about the electoral college…I originally declined since I am not an expert on the subject….but the more I thought about it I decided that something needs to be done…..

Apparently Trump won the electoral college and Clinton won the popular vote by some 1+ million votes…..with that has come the call for the elimination of the electoral college…..

Every four years, the Electoral College creeps back into the lives of American voters. In some presidential elections, the strange, indirect system used to select the next U.S. president can feel like a formality that doesn’t seem to matter much.

In other elections, it matters very much indeed. This is one of those years.

On Nov. 8, Donald Trump surpassed the necessary electoral votes to become the nation’s president-elect. But if you look at the popular vote, which is the direct number of votes cast, Hillary Clinton beat Trump by about 1 million votes.

Source: Critics Work To Get Rid Of The Electoral College : NPR

I am sure that the Trump supporters will be fine with the results…but would they if the shoe was on the other foot…..more stuff about a “rigged election” would be flying all over the internet, especially those blogs.

Personally, I have written several times during several elections that the college needs to go away and that the popular vote should be the only decider of an election…..

I have a couple of reasons….why I do not like the electoral college…..

1. The person a majority of Americans favor may not win.
Certain smaller states have a larger percentage of Electoral College votes than their percentage of population of the United States. This is because the minimum number of Electoral College votes for a state is three. Some consider this to not be democratic.

2. It’s complicated and dissuades people from voting.
A popular vote is a simple majority, but the Electoral College consists of redistributing votes every 10 years because of population changes and electing delegates. There are many more steps involved, which may give citizens the feeling that their vote does not matter, encouraging them to stay home instead of visiting the ballot box on election days, according to the U.S. Election Atlas.

3. Small states and swing states get more power.
One man does not equal one vote. California’s 55 Electoral College votes mean there are 705,454 people per vote while there are only 194,717 people for each of Wyoming’s three electoral votes.

I believe that the electoral college cheats democracy completely……

The election commentary now filling the Internet seems distinctly out of touch. Many analysts are castigating Hillary Clinton for all the things she did wrong, her failure to connect with white workers in the Rust Belt, her inability to sufficiently rally blacks, and so on. Or they’re criticizing the American people for falling for a racist, sexist know-nothing like Donald Trump.

But these critics are ignoring the elephant in the parlor. The simple fact is that Americans didn’t elect Trump. An ancient relic known as the Electoral College did. For better or worse, a plurality of the people voted for Hillary Clinton.

Source: How Electoral College Cheats Democracy – Consortiumnews

My dislike has nothing to do with this election…..(contrary to popular belief….I did not care who won the damn thing….NOTHING was gonna change) I have been a verbal critic for decades….only difference now is that people are starting to see what I have been preaching about and have seen the need to eliminate this dinosaur from the 18th century.

Please bear with me….there is one more piece I need to write in this mini-series and it will be done and you can think about who is going to win “Dancing With The Stars”…..

We Can Do So Much Better

Years ago I did a post about the electoral college and why we need to get rid of it and go to national popular vote.  I have nothing good to say about the EC and I believe it cheats the people from being the sole deliverer of a candidate……I am not alone….there are many of us that want to see a better democracy than we have now……

There is a national attempt to eliminate the EC….it is called National Popular Vote Compact……..and Rhode Island has become the latest location to do what they can to eliminate the EC…..

From Think Progress…….

Both houses of the Rhode Island General Assembly voted to add their state to the National Popular Vote Compact, a plan to effectively abolish the Electoral College and ensure that the winner of the popular vote becomes president in future elections. The bill now moves to Gov. Lincoln Chafee (D), who says he supports it.

Under the compact, states whose total votes equal at least 270 electoral votes — the amount necessary to elect the president — must pledge to award their electors to whoever wins the popular vote in the nation as a whole, even if that person does not carry their state. The compact does not take effect until the requite number of states have signed onto it, and must also be approved by Congress before it can take effect.

One effect of this compact, in addition to preventing a situation like 2000 where the loser of the popular vote ultimately moved into the White House, is it would also shut down attempts to rig the Electoral College itself. Earlier this year, Republican National Committee Chair Reince Priebus said that “a lot of states that have been consistently blue that are fully controlled red” should rig future presidential elections by allocating their electoral votes by congressional district. Such a plan would not only take advantage of gerrymandering that benefits Republicans, it would also be limited to blue states currently controlled by Republican state governments.

Americans need to get behind this attempt…….we can make a better government and a better voting experience….amd I am all in favor of a better experience and a better country.  How about you?

Would You Vote On A Saturday?

For years the American people have not been too enthusiastic about their duty to vote……we can blame lots of things for this trend……distrust, only 2 parties, no attractive candidate, apathy…..on and on….but when we are talking about the general election for the president of the United states….we are talking about the first Tuesday in November…..and that is part of the problem, in my opinion.

Polls open when most people are headed to work and close when people are trying to get home after a dreadful day at the office….kids, work, relationships, etc all keep people from the polls…in other words life keeps them from voting.  Can there be a solution found for this problem?

I think there is a pretty good shot to fixing this problem…….

Rep. Steve Israel (D-NY) and Rep. John Larson (D-CT) have introduced legislation that would let Americans vote on the first full weekend in November instead of the first Tuesday, ABC News reports.

“Tuesday was chosen as Election Day in 1845, when Congress decreed it the most convenient day for farmers — they needed three days to travel to their voting place without interfering with three days of religious worship. Reformers say the law is outdated and now interferes with workers’ plans, particularly people working more than one job or single parents who have responsibilities that might eclipse voting.”

I think changing the day to vote to a Saturday would be in the best interest of the country….it would be a more simple answer to the dwindling voter rates….

Speaking Of Campaign Reform

College of Political Knowledge

Election Series

Yet another thought provoking exchange with a loyal reader, Quin or Quintessential Havoc (blogroll will take you this insightful blog) (yes, I know I refer to Qunin often and the reason is he has the brilliant insight of being one of my most loyal readers and on top of that he has some insightful opinions….we may not always agree but at least we can have a dialog)…..we were talking about things that could be done to make the election process more legal and open…….one of the common things was that some sort of campaign reform is needed….Quin is from the UK and their system seems to be a bit more open than ours….

Campaign reform always comes up and I have my ideas like public financing, open primaries and so on….and as I was researching this I came upon these reforms on Squidoo.com and being essentially a lazy person I thounght I would post them in this piece……

  • Make all campaign donations anonymous. Pool all donations into a public general election fund. This fund would supply campaign funds for candidates running for ALL offices – from local through national positions. The amount of money a candidate receives would be based upon the office they were running for.
  • Accounting for the general fund and each campaign’s individual funds would be updated DAILY – not once a quarter as is currently done – and posted to the internet so that any citizen can log in and look at how their money is being spent.
  • All private donations to individual candidates would be outlawed. No donations from individuals, corporations, special interests, political action committees, non-profits, etc. No private donations of ANY KIND.
  • All candidates would receive FREE AIRTIME on both radio and television. They would receive comparable time slots to their opponents and all candidates would receive the same amount of time.
  • There should be no filing fees to run for office. Instead of current requirements and fees, candidates would be required to submit a resume or curriculum vitae detailing their educational and work background, an essay outlining their stands on the issues, a statement of their intent – why they are running for office, and a detailed account of all affiliations with organizations – corporations, political, social, non-profit, board of directors, etc.
  • Debates should be held more frequently than they currently are. They should run for a minimum of 8 weeks prior to the election. All candidates should be allowed to participate – regardless of party affiliation. They should be broadcast live on radio, television, and the internet. After the debate has ended, full video should be posted on the internet to allow those who were not able to watch to see it at a later time in its entirety.
  • Finally, a voter’s guide should be published by local governments and sent to EVERY registered voter at least 8 weeks prior to the election. This guide should be put together in an easily understandable format and will include information on local through national candidates for office. It should include all information obtained by the candidate at the time they filed to run for office along with a detailed voting record for all incumbents.

All in all, I will agree with most points of these reforms….I think that if we are to truly have a government of the people then we need reform and need it NOW!  None of these reforms are difficult to accomplish except for the money part….millionaires do NOT want to give up their “seed” money……this is needed….when a candidate spends 104 million dollars to get a $500,000 a year job, then something is seriously wrong with the system we have.

I might add that ALL elected officials should be held to a mandatory 65 retirement age…that way we keep incompetent old farts from imposing their BS on the rest of the country.

You Were Warned About Change (Redux)

Daily Agitator

I am sick of all the Lefties that go on air a bitch that Obama is NOT doing what he promised during the ’08 election process…..the change that he promised…

This is a repost of a piece I wrote on Daily Kos on 25 Feb 2008…..I was whacked on the pee-pee for NOT supporting Obama and now many of those from Kos are on air bitching about the lack of change from Obama….and of course, I thoroughly enjoy saying “I TOLD YOU SO!”

First, I have heard Clinton called a populist and a progressive.  All I can say to that is WTF?  By no stretch of the imagination can she call herself those titles.  Her positions are straight out of the playbook of the DLC and, to use Bill’s terms. if you believe that “I have some land I wanna sell ya”.  But I digress!  Obama has been called a progressive also.  Thinking…thinking…It is possible to use that label, but it will take a bit of an imagination to do so.  I will agree that change is just a word and not necessarily a progressive one.  The belief that one can actually bring about political change is definitely a progressive idea.

We have all heard the diatribes by the Clinton camp on Obama.  The inexperience, hollow promises and not much Congressional success, all are tried to be used against him.  These things are valid to question, but does not preclude failure.  The approach to change will be the indicator to watch.  Will Obama surround himself with people that actually want to change Washington?  Voters need to realize that the positions of Obama during the primary season, will be altered for the general election.  Politicians will be adding and subtracting from the positions until they get a platform they consider to be a winner.

OK, I realize that so far I have said nothing that has not been mentioned in the MSM.  Here is where I will look for the indication of real change. His acceptance speech, if he is nominated, will lay out what direction his administration will follow.  But, IMO, the most telling indicator will be who is chosen to be the vice-president.  Why?  If his Veep is pulled out of the DLC, then he has sold out to this “conservative” organization and any change will be solely symbolic.  Change will NOT occur only reform.  Reform is not what is needed.  Reform is easily overturned and will have little positive effect for the average working stiff.

If Obama is nominated, then watch the convention and watch it closely for there is where you will know if you have been duped.

Take that Nostradamus!

We Need Election Reform

For years many of us have been calling for some form of election reform….they have heard our calls…but their idea of reform is to control the funds that are given to campaigns…..everyone is yelling about the cash that is spent on and by campaigns….it is a legitimate concern but there is more to election reform than the amount of money that is thrown around….

There has been a movement since 1867 to try and control the amount of money in campaigns that in turn gives some  more influence in politics than others…..and the recent ruling by the US Supreme Court has crapped all over that movement, when they ruled that corporations could directly donate to campaigns…this will give corporations unbridled influence and in turn will give even more than now, more say in what will be considered by the Congress and the Prez as important issues of the day.

I am, among others, talking about such other things, beyond campaign funds, like term limits, accessibility to third parties to the electoral process, etc…….

On term limits the Cato Institute has some very good points in favor:

Lesson One. Term limits stimulate political competition. That is accomplished in a variety of ways, from increasing the number of open seats and special elections to lowering the reelection rates of incumbents. Many former incumbents return to private life, and a significant number run for other offices, thereby stimulating political competition at other levels. There is also evidence to suggest that campaigns may be less costly in a term-limited electoral environment. Under term limits, California’s state campaign spending since 1992 is 44 percent lower than from 1984 to 1988.

Lesson Two. Term limits increase legislative diversity. The prospect of shorter political careers is also changing the characteristics of people who choose to seek public office, encouraging political participation by nonprofessional politicians. Hence, the occupational makeup of state legislatures is gradually moving away from the traditional preponderance of ex-lawyers and ex-political aides. In California in 1995 there were only 3.4 percent self-described full-time state legislators, down from 36 percent in 1986, and three times more legislators are now business people than were previously.

Lesson Three. Term-limited legislatures undergo positive institutional changes. As institutions, they become more merit based and less governed by an outdated seniority system. Term limits eliminate the possibility of entrenched legislative leaders dominating a legislative chamber. Leadership positions (especially that of Speaker) become less powerful as a more decentralized power structure evolves in response to the growing independence of term-limited freshmen legislators. Generally speaking, freshman legislators tend to ask tougher questions of bureaucrats and demand a higher level of performance from government agencies than did their predecessors.

Lesson Four. Term limits act as a natural campaign finance reform. Term limits diminish the value of a legislative seat to lobbyists and the special interests they represent in state capitals. That reduces the incentive for lobbyists to raise and to distribute the large “soft money” contributions so disliked by the political establishment. In states as dissimilar as Maine, Michigan, and Ohio there is evidence that lobbyists are unsettled by the term limits-induced need to build new political relationships from scratch.

Lesson Five. Term limits improve the quality of legislation. The continual infusion of fresh blood into state legislatures is improving public policy. By mandating frequent legislative turnover, term limits are bringing new perspectives to state legislatures, reducing the concentration on reelection, and thereby diminishing the incentive for wasteful election-related pork barrel spending that flourishes in a careerist legislative culture.

A good case for term limits……

What about third party politics?  Here is a doozy of a subject—-third party politics is almost non-existent in the US…yes there is a wealth of single issue parties but few get on ballots and even fewer are anywhere close to successful.  The biggest argument against this is that they point to Europe and their need for coalitions to govern…personally I think that is a lame excuse……they do not like the idea that a candidate could get less than 50% of the vote and still be the winner……and in the US they discourage any third party by making it all but impossible to get on a ballot…making it hard because of the number of signatures needed or the large sum of money to register the party…basically they give third parties ever obstacle they can imagine to keep them off of a ballot…..they cannot outlaw third parties outright because it would be anti-Constitutional, so they use legal trickery to do the same thing…keep third parties off of ballots…..

Personally, I think any party should be allowed on every ballot…it would make our system more democratic and make election watching far more interesting than it is now…..most people do not agree with me on this….they see ALL third parties as spoilers……..but they are the ones that think the two party system is the ONLY answer to a well run political system……apparently, they are not paying attention!