Nov Election, Candidates Aside...

[mkemse]

I understand your objections and can see some merit in them. But I can also see merit in restructuring the election process. As things stand now, the candidate who can raise the most money stands the best chance of buying the election. That requires him/her to kowtow to the people with the money; big business, the elite, etc. This makes it very difficult for a candidate who wants to impose limits on the effects of big business and the rich on politics to get funding, thereby making it more difficult for him to buy equal time on TV.

What I'm saying is, take the money out of the equation. ALL funds go into a trough, and every candidate gets an equal portion. Then limit the amount of money which can be spent on advertising. The candidate can choose to purchase a lot of TV time in non-prime time slots, or a little bit of time in the more expensive, but more lucrative slots.

As for who would qualify for this money, sure there are problems which would have to be ironed out. I don't claim to have all the answers. And I don't want to see anyone's freedoms taken away. I just want to see more equity in the election process, making it a little more possible for a non-Democrat or non-Republican to get into office. As for personal choices, you can still promote your candidate through innumerable free venues, such as writing letters to the papers, online sites, even public rallies.

Sure it's a rough proposal, and one I don't anticipate getting any serious attention from politicians. After all, passing a law along these lines would be tantamount to political suicide for many of them.

What real needs to be done plain and simpe is get rid of the Electoral College, it is way out of date and use only the Popular Vote to decide the Next President

[Ragoczy]

What real needs to be done plain and simpe is get rid of the Electoral College, it is way out of date and use only the Popular Vote to decide the Next President

Why?

The first thing to understand about the Electoral College is that, Constitutionally, you as an individual have no right to vote for President of the United States and weren't intended to. The United States is a Republic made of up of the Several States. The intent of the framers, as expressed in the Constitution, was that those States would decide who led the Union (President). It would be perfectly legal, Constitutionally, for a State Legislature to simply appoint delegates to the Electoral College as they saw fit, holding no popular vote at all within that State. It just so happens that all States allocate their Electoral votes based on a popular election within that State.

The second thing to understand is how Electors are apportioned to the Several States and why. This is done in the same way as Representatives, based on the Census. The apportionment was designed to give high-population States greater representation, and consequently greater say in who became President, while still maintaining a balance for less populace States by providing a minimum number of Electors and Representatives. In this way the larger States are not so able to "gang up" on less populated States (typically rural).

Doing away with the Electoral College and moving to a purely popular vote would give a disproportionate amount of political power to heavily populated urban areas at the expense of the minority in rural areas. The President would become a President of the Cities, needing to concern himself little with the needs of those in less populated areas. It would also eliminate the Republic concept, weakening States' rights.

We've already moved away from the Republic-intent of the Constitution by ratifying the 17th Amendment in 1912. This made Senators elected by popular vote instead of being appointed by the State legislatures.

Yes, this "solved" an immediate, perceived problem -- that of corruption and confusion in the Senatorial selection process.

But look at what it's created: a Senate full of career politicians, 80- and 90-year old Senators whose mental faculties are questionable at best, their offices essentially being served by unelected, unappointed staff.

It created an American aristocracy of Senatorial privilege that hadn't previously existed, because the legislatures had typically not sent the same Senator to Washington for four or more decades.

Rather than Statesmen, men who were there to perform a duty for their State and Country, we have politicians who are more interested in not making hard decisions, not doing anything controversial, even if it's in the Country's best interest, and, most importantly, not doing anything that would hurt their chances to be reelected.

It is so easy to look for the simple answer to a complex question without fully exploring the possible ramifications, but altering the fundamental principles of the Republic is not something to be undertaken lightly.

[Thorne]

It is so easy to look for the simple answer to a complex question without fully exploring the possible ramifications, but altering the fundamental principles of the Republic is not something to be undertaken lightly.

You are so right! And it is in forums like this, discussions between concerned people, that the foundations for making those alterations can be built. It's a slow, agonizing process, to be sure. As you say, there are no easy answers. And if it comes right down to it, I'd rather have no change than to make things worse with bad changes.