The mid-term elections are in full swing, and there’s no stopping them. The opportunity to do anything about reforming the process before November is long past. But in the past weeks there has been increasing energy in the media about the 2o12 Presidential elections. It’s not too late to do something about that.
Congress seems to struggle with the issue of election reform and can’t get the big issues resolved. Every time the subject comes up they pass a couple of minor bills to try to whet the appetite of the American people, but in reality, nothing of significance happens. So, let’s pretend that we are the U. S. Congress. We don’t have a job depending upon our actions. We can be bold without fear of recriminations. Let’s give it a try.
- First of all, let’s limit public campaigns (especially media advertising) to the nine months prior to the election. That means that political advertising for the presidential elections cannot begin before February 1, 2012.
- Public funding of all elections is a must, eliminating the obscene multi-million dollar campaigns which have less to do with qualifications for office than ability to raise money. Campaign spending caps can be regulated when the money is public money.
- Let’s move the actual election day to a weekend day when workers are more likely to have the flexibility to get to a polling place without losing wages.
- Voting by mail makes a lot of sense. Oregon has had a very successful history of mail voting. Why not the rest of the nation? It is offensive to think that a small portion of the potential voting population actually participates in something so important.
- The elimination of the Electoral College is past due. Direct election of the President makes more sense in the 21st Century.
- Election districts must be re-defined by independent, non-political bodies in each state. In an age of computers it is ludicrous to continue an archaic system of designing election districts. It will mean a massive re-alignment of political power, with winners and losers all over the place. So be it.
- Reasonable term limits would be nice. We don’t want to lose expertise and wisdom in the government, but neither do we want perpetuation of office holders beyond reasonable time periods. If an office holder was required to step aside for one term every three terms in the House and every two terms in the Senate it would provide for that possibility. They can always run again after that sabbatical term. (Isn’t it interesting that we are so comfortable with the two-term limit on the President, but reject it for other elected officials?)
That’s enough for now. What we have just accomplished is exactly what the populace of this country has been expecting for decades. The problem is that the people most affected by this reform are the ones charged with the responsibility to enact it. They are crippled by self-preservation. They don’t need to send us thank you notes for our work. Just paying attention to the work in front of them without being distracted by perpetual electioneering would be enough.
Well, the alarm clock has sounded, and my dream is ended. Time to re-enter reality.
Photo Credit: voting booth
{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Elections wouldn’t be about winning states. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. Every vote would be counted for and assist the candidate for whom it was cast – just as votes from every county are equal and important when a vote is cast in a Governor’s race. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.
Now 2/3rds of the states and voters are ignored — 19 of the 22 smallest and medium-small states and big states like California, Georgia, New York, and Texas. The current winner-take-all rule (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) used by 48 of the 50 states, and not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution, ensures that the candidates do not reach out to all of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes–that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president. The National Popular Vote bill does not try to abolish the Electoral College, which would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action, without federal constitutional amendments.
The bill has been endorsed or voted for by 1,922 state legislators (in 50 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. Support for a national popular vote is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed in recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado– 68%, Iowa –75%, Michigan– 73%, Missouri– 70%, New Hampshire– 69%, Nevada– 72%, New Mexico– 76%, North Carolina– 74%, Ohio– 70%, Pennsylvania — 78%, Virginia — 74%, and Wisconsin — 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Alaska — 70%, DC — 76%, Delaware –75%, Maine — 77%, Nebraska — 74%, New Hampshire –69%, Nevada — 72%, New Mexico — 76%, Rhode Island — 74%, and Vermont — 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas –80%, Kentucky — 80%, Mississippi –77%, Missouri — 70%, North Carolina — 74%, and Virginia — 74%; and in other states polled: California — 70%, Connecticut — 74% , Massachusetts — 73%, Minnesota — 75%, New York — 79%, Washington — 77%, and West Virginia- 81%.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 30 state legislative chambers, in 20 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas (6), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), Maine (4), Michigan (17), Nevada (5), New Mexico (5), New York (31), North Carolina (15), and Oregon (7), and both houses in California (55), Colorado (9), Hawaii (4), Illinois (21), New Jersey (15), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (12), Rhode Island (4), Vermont (3), and Washington (11). The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington. These six states possess 73 electoral votes — 27% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2208145434#